Belief and Knowledge

[Mister Agenda]

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.

When it was discovered by Hubble that the universe was expanding. Did that evidence bolster or weaken General Relativity? It bolstered it, because although nobody predicted an expanding universe, they should have....because it was an implication of the theory.

And if it had not been expanding, it would have 'bolstered' something else, which would probably be similarly an obvious implication...in retrospect. Einstein dropped the ball by not predicting an expanding universe. The theory had to be revised to account for it, and Einstein regarded it as his biggest blunder. General Relativity required the smallest fix to retrofit, if you want to call that 'bolstering'.

The same is true here. It doesn't matter that nobody predicted the appearance of effects which do not have local causes....it is still an implication of an existent God.

Are you a Nostradomus believer too? Because THOSE predictions are also easy to retrofit, but useless beforehand.

---

Baseless assertion. You must realize that this is an argument from ignorance; we observe something that to date defies explanation, therefore God.

Negative....not an argument from ignorance....there is no explanation which defies us because we know these effects do not have local causes. I am claiming the observance of effects without local causes is exactly something we should expect to see if an unseen God exists and interacts with this world.

And it's a mere claim, with nothing of substance to back it up. Why would we expect that, if God? Is God incapable of interacting with the world in a way that appears natural? Is no other explanation for the phenomenon reasonable?