Who throws the dice for you?

[pocaracas]

Semantics, is that to which we have been reduced?

Human communication IS based on words and their sequence, so it is an important part of exchanging ideas... more so on an online forum where writing is the foremost form of expressing those ideas.

However, there are subjects about which our language fails us and tends to lead us into pitfalls of reasoning. Such as "before there was time"; "outside Space-time" and other pearls like these...

[Anomalocaris]

I've emboldened the conclusion which you've included in the premise.

"If God exists" is not a conclusion. "If" is a conditional statement. You are conflating a condition with a conclusion. The conclusion or declaration that "God exists" is not contained with in any premises.

Sorry Ben but you get an F here.

Don't be a weasle. "god exsist" is the one and only conclusion towards which you've striven through this deceitful little construction that so happen to have "if" at the beginning.

[Ryantology]

[Chas]

The 'only if...' means that this is an assumption not a condition. Consequently your statement reads:

Premise: Things are only wierd if God exists
Premise: Things are wierd
Conclusion: God exists

You get a U.

Sorry bro, "only" does not make the "if" go away. Its a conditional statement....not a statement that makes a conclusion.

Premise: Things are only wierd if God does not exist
Premise: Things are wierd
Conclusion: God does not exist

Equally valid.

[Jackalope]

Premise: Things are only wierd if God does not exist
Premise: Things are wierd
Conclusion: God does not exist

Equally valid.

Equally sound as well.

[Heywood]

Replace "supernatural" with "non local / non physical" if you like.

What is supernatural about non-locality if it is integral to natural world and subject to observation and prediction?

Replace "god" with "supernatural mechanism" if you like.

What does replacing one empty word without specific predictive power with another do except to steal an underserved aura of cultural awe to thwart an uncomfortable rigorous investigation in order to better remain swaddled in an disgraceful comfort blanket of ignorance?

If you can't define your answer, then your answer has no potential specific explanatory power, and is therefore is not subject to verification, validation, or falsification. It only offers the illusory and nebulous power of a smoke screen to deter investigation. So if you can't define your answer to the point of making your answer in principle falsifiable, you've offered only meaningless words, not an answer.

If no answer can be given that has specific predictive power and thereby falsifiability, then be honest and say "No Answer".

Chuck, claiming quantum randomness is fundamental is just as empty and has no predicative power, cannot be tested, not subject to verification, validation, or falsification. You can test for the appearance of randomness, but you have no way of knowing if it is like all the other randomness....an artifact of ignorance or if it is some kind of new randomness that just exists...for its own sake.

Further, if the hypothesis that our reality is dependent on a supernatural reality is true, you would expect to find aspects of our reality that cannot be explained local physical causes. As it happens this is exactly what we observe. To say such a hypothesis has no predictive power is false.

---

"If God exists" is not a conclusion. "If" is a conditional statement. You are conflating a condition with a conclusion. The conclusion or declaration that "God exists" is not contained with in any premises.

Sorry Ben but you get an F here.

Don't be a weasle. "god exsist" is the one and only conclusion towards which you've striven through this deceitful little construction that so happen to have "if" at the beginning.

Ben's claim was that I was "begging the question". Showing his claim was false is not being a "weasel". If anything I did him a favor by teaching him what "begging the question" really means.

I'm afraid you will just have to learn to live with the idea that certain aspects of physical reality support the notion of God.

[FallentoReason]

If I roll dice, the out come of the roll is completely random to me. However If I looked at the dice roll in sufficient detail....noting the initial point of contact, velocity, angular momentum, coefficient of friction, etc. the outcome becomes predictable. It would seem then that randomness is really just a function of ignorance.

This LaPlacian view holds true until you get to the quantum level. At the quantum level events happen which physicists tell us are fundamentally random. Fundamentally random is a hard pill to swallow when randomness appears to be a function of ignorance.

So who or what is throwing the dice for you atheists?

How is a lack of knowledge any problem? Gamblers in the 16th century might have believed that a game involving dice was random, but now we have an understanding of physics that answers the question.
Likewise with quantum physics, we are merely 16th century men who are yet to understand it's deeper workings.

God-of-the-gaps is essentially what you're pushing for.
Not convincing.

[Ben Davis]

Ben's claim was that I was "begging the question". Showing his claim was false is not being a "weasel". If anything I did him a favor by teaching him what "begging the question" really means.

Actually, all you showed is that you either don't realise when you're begging the question or that you'll deliberately lie in order to defend your faith.

The 'only' was crucial because it negates the 'if': there is no alternative to the 'condition' therefore it's not a condition, it's an assumption. The construction of an IF statement is IF, THEN, ELSE. If there's no ELSE, the IF is irrelevant.

I'm afraid you will just have to learn to live with the idea that certain aspects of physical reality support the notion of God.

Quite the contrary. I wonder if you'll ever learn to live with that?

[Heywood]

Ben's claim was that I was "begging the question". Showing his claim was false is not being a "weasel". If anything I did him a favor by teaching him what "begging the question" really means.

Actually, all you showed is that you either don't realise when you're begging the question or that you'll deliberately lie in order to defend your faith.

The 'only' was crucial because it negates the 'if': there is no alternative to the 'condition' therefore it's not a condition, it's an assumption. The construction of an IF statement is IF, THEN, ELSE. If there's no ELSE, the IF is irrelevant.

I'm afraid you will just have to learn to live with the idea that certain aspects of physical reality support the notion of God.

Quite the contrary. I wonder if you'll ever learn to live with that?

Don't be silly. The "only" doesn't negate the "if". It negates the possibility of an explanation other than God.

The argument is valid. There is no begging the question.

For the record, the point of the argument was not to summarize my position. The point of the argument was to show you there is no begging the question. You can take the "only" out if you like.

[Ben Davis]

Don't be silly. The "only" doesn't negate the "if". It negates the possibility of an explanation other than God.

... thus negating the 'if'! If there's no 'else' there's no reason for an 'if'!! Don't ever try to program an IF statement, you'll probably end the universe.

You can take the "only" out if you like.

How about I re-write the 'hypothesis' properly for you:

1. Problem: We see events which cannot be explained by local physical causes
2. Hypothesis: There is a 'control method' for 'events which cannot be explained by local physical causes'
3. Null-hypothesis: there is no 'control method' for 'events which cannot be explained by local physical causes'
4. Definition: <insert definition of 'events'>
5. Experiment: Observe and recreate 'events' in order to create definitions of possible 'control methods'
6. Result: Factually demonstrate the existence of God
7. Holy shit!

I predict that you will fail at 6.

Should you, somehow, fulfill the above requirements, you might then posit:

Premise 1: God is demonstrably existent
Premise 2: God interacts with quantum events in measurable ways
Premise 3: God-controlled quantum events have an appearance of randomness
Conclusion: God is the control mechanism behind the appearance of randomness in quantum events