Who throws the dice for you?

[Heywood]

If the God hypothesis is true, you would expect to find artifacts of reality which cannot be explained by hidden local physical variables. When low and behold this if found to be a fact of the universe....it gives you reason to increase your confidence in the God hypothesis.

One possible virtue that a theory might have is its predictive power, that it allows us to tell, from the theory, what observations will count as confirmation of a theory, and what observations will count as disconfirmation of the theory. Now you obviously have some theory as to the nature of God which, in your view, leads to the expectation that effects which have no cause will be observed (randomness). What is this theory? What leads you to expect randomness to be a confirmation of His existence, and the lack of randomness to be a disconfirmation? What is your theory of how God works such that 'randomness' is a logical prediction of that idea?

Negative Rasetsu,

I have a hypothesis about God and not a theory. As you know there is a big difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

---

The fact that randomness can't be explained by things we can observe isn't up for question. However, why can't it be? That is still up for grabs. We don't know that. And you're saying it points to God.

Bell's theorem tells us why it can't be explained with quantum mechanics. That question is "still not up for grabs".

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

Another explanation is that Quantum Mechanics is wrong and Bohmian Mechanics is correct. Bohmian Mechanics, to my knowledge, makes every prediction that is made by quantum mechanics yet is completely deterministic. Bohmian Mechanics has contextually problems which is why it isn't widely accepted.

[Angrboda]

If the God hypothesis is true, you would expect to find artifacts of reality which cannot be explained by hidden local physical variables. When low and behold this if found to be a fact of the universe....it gives you reason to increase your confidence in the God hypothesis.

One possible virtue that a theory might have is its predictive power, that it allows us to tell, from the theory, what observations will count as confirmation of a theory, and what observations will count as disconfirmation of the theory. Now you obviously have some theory as to the nature of God which, in your view, leads to the expectation that effects which have no cause will be observed (randomness). What is this theory? What leads you to expect randomness to be a confirmation of His existence, and the lack of randomness to be a disconfirmation? What is your theory of how God works such that 'randomness' is a logical prediction of that idea?

Negative Rasetsu,

I have a hypothesis about God and not a theory. As you know there is a big difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

What the fuck ever. What's your hypothesis? (And please tell me it's more than the bare prediction you've made.)

[Tobie]

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

God being an explanation implies it has some kind of proof. How does a God generate randomness? Surely if it set of results has been generated, then they are not random? What would the purpose of creating a semblance of randomness in the world? Surely it would be of a much greater benefit to the human race, which are after all your god's chosen species, if the outcome of a procedure was definite? It is much nicer to deal with certainties than probabilities.

[Heywood]

What the fuck ever. What's your hypothesis? (And please tell me it's more than the bare prediction you've made.)

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.

---

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

God being an explanation implies it has some kind of proof. How does a God generate randomness? Surely if it set of results has been generated, then they are not random? What would the purpose of creating a semblance of randomness in the world? Surely it would be of a much greater benefit to the human race, which are after all your god's chosen species, if the outcome of a procedure was definite? It is much nicer to deal with certainties than probabilities.

The reason many games have an element of randomness is because the element of randomness makes the game more interesting.

[Anomalocaris]

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

By god, you are a dishonest idiot who wastes everyone else's time with your totally wishful, in principle invalidatable, essentially indistinguishable from vast majority of other bullshit, bullshit.

[Heywood]

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

By god, you are a dishonest idiot who wastes everyone else's time with your totally wishful, in principle invalidatable, bullshit.

You're the last person I would have expected to toss an insult Chuck. Insults are the tools of the weak-minded. My respect for you has dropped a notch.

[Esquilax]

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.

Can anybody say "argument from ignorance"?

[Cyberman]

Can anyone say FSTDT?

[Heywood]

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.

Can anybody say "argument from ignorance"?

Not an argument from ignorance.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

Can anybody say "argument from ignorance"?

It is not an argument he is advancing, but bullshit.

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.

His bullshit contains no such feature. Even should the absence of evidence be rectified, his bullshit, by virtue of its inextricability from adjectives and nouns such as "supernatural" and "god" which he pointedly refuse to define, would remain just as vacuous as before.

If you are to replace the word "god" in each of his posts with the meaningless sequence of letters such as "Waaaa", and "supernatural" with "Gaaaa", the content of his posts would in no way change.

So one might conclude that his choice of the culturally loaded words "god" and "supernatural" betrays the fact that he is fight a war of deception for a cultural concept, and his invoking of terms derived study of physical reality is just a false flag tactic, a ruse de guerre, and he has no loyalty to science and no interest in rigorous probing of actual physical reality.