Belief and Knowledge

[Mister Agenda]

The non-local cause thing would actually have been an interesting check mark for your side...if any of you had posited it BEFORE we discovered quantum weirdness.

Theists didn't have to posit it. Atheists posited it for us. Long before the discovery of quantum wierdness, atheists were proclaiming that if God exists we should see evidence for His existence in the world....like some event which can't be caused by anything in our reality. Low and Behold its discovered that some events do not have local causes. Apparently causes which are not part of our reality no longer get the check mark. You guys keep moving the goal posts back.

To be evidence of God it has to point to God, an intentional being, not poorly understood physics, which is just a God of the gaps. Some quantum phenomenena is clearly actually causeless, some may be tied up with parallel universes or additional dimensions, but that would just mean that 'reality' is bigger than we thought. There's absolutely no evidence that any of what's going on is intentional. To be evicdence of something, it has to be evidence of a particular thing, not just 'we have another mystery, therefore God'.

---

That's a bit vague for a prediction. I don't think it would pass peer review. Bit like the weatherman "Tonights weather will be dark, ending with light at dawn."

Actually I don't like that last statement and would like to take it back. I don't know what atheists thought before the discovery of quantum wierdness. I only assume they thought such things. I just think MA criticism that it would have gotten a check mark if predicted ahead of time is a little ludicrous. He's taking a position that if someone made the prediction ahead of time....that prediction somehow changes the evidence. It does not.

Retraction accepted, belatedly.

You misunderstand me. Making the prediction ahead of time would be evidence that it was actually useful in making a prediction. Going back after something has been discovered to see if you can retrofit it into indicating prior knowledge is childish.