Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[AV1611VET]

Christians to have a statistically higher rate of spontaneous remission from cancer than non-Christians, due to increased prayer for same.

Nuns statistically less likely to be killed in automobile accidents.

Then do you know what atheists would be doing?

Whining that the Parable of the Tares makes no sense.

Wondering why God delivered Sister Sue from an automobile accident, but let His only begotten Son die on a cross.

And speaking of Sister Sue, wondering why Sister Sue, who ran a stop sign on her way to Bingo Night in her Triumph and was broadsided by 10 atheists in a Dodge Ram coming home from a Rescue-the-Haitians rally, drove away w/o a scratch, when all 10 atheists couldn't even be identified by their next-of-kin.

Would that be convincing enough, Skaloop?

 

[MoonLancer]

And speaking of Sister Sue, wondering why Sister Sue, who ran a stop sign on her way to Bingo Night in her Triumph and was broadsided by 10 atheists in a Dodge Ram coming home from a Rescue-the-Haitians rally, drove away w/o a scratch, when all 10 atheists couldn't even be identified by their next-of-kin.

Would that be convincing enough, Skaloop?

Not really. I can think of many reasons why in physics that this would occur.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really. I can think of many reasons why in physics that this would occur.

Given that I believe that physics is one of their gods, I can agree with you.

 

[MoonLancer]

And what exactly would we expect to see if God existed, but don't? World peace? The end to all human suffering? A single unified religion? Better science? No Atheists?

God would be a good start to that list. So far God has never talked to me using sound waves or visited me in a form that reflects light. I would also hypothesis he has never done so for anyone else exept for the empty claims in the bible. Why must god only visit people in such a way that cannot be proven or shown or distinguished from a crazy person.

 

[AV1611VET]

God would be a good start to that list. So far God has never talked to me using sound waves or visited me in a form that reflects light.

Give Him time.

 

[MoonLancer]

Given that I believe that physics is one of their gods, I can agree with you.

Not a god. simple cause and effect. People on a head on collision not wearing safety belts tend to have negative effects.

 

[Skaloop]

And speaking of Sister Sue, wondering why Sister Sue, who ran a stop sign on her way to Bingo Night in her Triumph and was broadsided by 10 atheists in a Dodge Ram coming home from a Rescue-the-Haitians rally, drove away w/o a scratch, when all 10 atheists couldn't even be identified by their next-of-kin.

Would that be convincing enough, Skaloop?

Nope. I am not talking about on-off incidents. I am talking about ongoing statistically significant differences between Christians and non-Christians as populations.

You'd have to control for variables (such as, perhaps, Christians drive at slower speeds, are more likely to wear seatbelts), but if it could be shown that in America, Christians involved in car accidents between 40 and 60 mph survive at a rate of 35%, while non-Christians involved in car accidents between 40 and 60 mph survive at a rate of 25%, then that would be the sort of thing that would catch my attention provided that the difference was outside of the expected statistical variance.

 

[Jnwaco]

Where? You claimed my argument boiled down to "We're here, so X must be true. It's a tautology. You're answering the question "how did we get here with an infinite past" by saying "we're here".", but as I stated in the next post, that is not my argument at all. My point is that the problem of 'how did we get to now?' doesn't make sense, because a) 'now' is wherever it is we happen to be, and b) we don't 'get here', because that implies an origin point, which doesn't exist in this hypothetical, eternal universe.

The question does make sense, unless you abandon causality and the arrow of time. And again, your response was a tautology. Then, saying the question doesn't make sense is not valid, because we do traverse time as we live our lives, and the planet traversed time as it was formed, and the star from which we got our heavy elements from traversed time. All of these finite, yet, you think that there is an infinite past. This is true even if time is inseperable from the other dimensions.

Think of it this way: if the universe is eternal, then an infinite amount of time has elapsed before 'now'. The problem of who we could have traversed an infinite distance with finite steps is solved: we have an infinite number of finite steps.

If there is an infinite number of finite steps behind us, how are we then here? You cannot get to infinity by the addition of steps. By definition, if you can add something to infinity, you're not there yet.

The 'present' is a volume in 4D spacetime, nothing more.

What was yesterday? A somewhat smaller volume? That implies change which implies time. Even if all events, past, present, and future, exist simultaneously, consciously we're moving from one 4d (or more) still shot to the next, in a certain direction.

Why not?

Because one can never count down from infinity to zero. Another paradox is why, were you to be counting down from infinity, did you not get to 0 yesterday?

Suffice to say if you've once and for all solved the problem of an infinite past, there is a Department of Philosophy or ten with a chair and tenure to give you.

 

[MoonLancer]

Give Him time.

I shouldn't need to give God time because as he is written he is not constrained by it. It will always be right over the next bend like a mirage in the desert. It will always be soon, but never now. You will understand when you die what a waste life has been waiting for the moment that will never be now.

 

[Jnwaco]

Nope. I am not talking about on-off incidents. I am talking about ongoing statistically significant differences between Christians and non-Christians as populations.

You'd have to control for variables (such as, perhaps, Christians drive at slower speeds, are more likely to wear seatbelts), but if it could be shown that in America, Christians involved in car accidents between 40 and 60 mph survive at a rate of 35%, while non-Christians involved in car accidents between 40 and 60 mph survive at a rate of 25%, then that would be the sort of thing that would catch my attention provided that the difference was outside of the expected statistical variance.

What about statistically higher suicide rates (attempted and successful) among atheists or non-believers? Nevermind, that wouldn't convince me, either.

 

[Skaloop]

What about statistically higher suicide rates (attempted and successful) among atheists or non-believers? Nevermind, that wouldn't convince me, either.

That wouldn't have anything to do with god intervening, though (unless you are suggesting that god is causing these people to kill themselves, which I doubt you are).

There are all sorts of sociological aspects around suicide, and I won't deny that being a member of a church can help with some of the problems leading to suicide attempts by providing a boost to self-esteem and a community support structure. But those things are not church-specific and can be found in multiple different religions and groups. Heck, joining a bowling league can offer those things.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The question does make sense, unless you abandon causality and the arrow of time. And again, your response was a tautology. Then, saying the question doesn't make sense is not valid, because we do traverse time as we live our lives, and the planet traversed time as it was formed, and the star from which we got our heavy elements from traversed time. All of these finite, yet, you think that there is an infinite past.

Where did I say I think there is an infinite path? Please do not put words into my mouth.

If there is an infinite number of finite steps behind us, how are we then here? You cannot get to infinity by the addition of steps.

Consider:

An infinite number of finite steps does indeed lead to infinity.

By definition, if you can add something to infinity, you're not there yet.

If you can add something to it, it's not infinity.

What was yesterday? A somewhat smaller volume?

No, 'yesterday' encompasses a 4D hypervolume in spacetime, since 'yesterday' is a period of 24 hours. 'Now' is a specific point in time, so it's a mere 3D volume (it's like a 3D volume in 3D space and a 2D plane in 3D space).

That implies change which implies time. Even if all events, past, present, and future, exist simultaneously, consciously we're moving from one 4d (or more) still shot to the next, in a certain direction.

Agreed. And 'now' is wherever we happen to be. Obviously, 'now' yesterday is different to 'now' tomorrow, but we are always at 'now', since, by definition, it's wherever we happen to be.

Because one can never count down from infinity to zero. Another paradox is why, were you to be counting down from infinity, did you not get to 0 yesterday?

Because I am not counting down from anything, that's the whole point. These paradoxes only arise when one treats infinity as a number; it most certainly is not.

Suffice to say if you've once and for all solved the problem of an infinite past, there is a Department of Philosophy or ten with a chair and tenure to give you.

My solution is not a new one, since a rigorous understanding of the nature of infinity is not mine and mine alone. For every philosopher who rejects the possibility of an eternal universe, there is one that accepts it.

 

[Jnwaco]

Where did I say I think there is an infinite path? Please do not put words into my mouth.

I'm not putting words in your mouth:

I'm saying that your objection to an eternal universe is unfounded

Which of course it isn't.

Consider:

An infinite number of finite steps does indeed lead to infinity.

Actually, it does lead to infinity, by definition.

No, 'yesterday' encompasses a 4D hypervolume in spacetime, since 'yesterday' is a period of 24 hours. 'Now' is a specific point in time, so it's a mere 3D volume (it's like a 3D volume in 3D space and a 2D plane in 3D space).

Unconvincing. So you have a series of 3d "still shots" and for an infinite past, you have an infinite number of prior still shots in an infinite universe.

Agreed. And 'now' is wherever we happen to be. Obviously, 'now' yesterday is different to 'now' tomorrow, but we are always at 'now', since, by definition, it's wherever we happen to be.

Yes, but that ignores change. If we were constantly at the now, there would be no change. Temporal word play is likewise unconvincing.

Because I am not counting down from anything, that's the whole point. These paradoxes only arise when one treats infinity as a number; it most certainly is not.

Then there is no infinite past.

My solution is not a new one, since a rigorous understanding of the nature of infinity is not mine and mine alone. For every philosopher who rejects the possibility of an eternal universe, there is one that accepts it.

Your solution is not a valid one, either.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not a god. simple cause and effect. People on a head on collision not wearing safety belts tend to have negative effects.

I said 'broadsided' though --- as in T-boned.

 

[AV1611VET]

You'd have to control for variables...

Oh, but God would handle the variables, would He not?

Just like He did during the Flood.

Let's take MoonLancers misconception for a moment, and make it a head-on, instead of a T-bone.

What if every single time, without exception, a Christian is involved in a head-on collision --- say Televangelist Tim is on his bicycle and rides head-on into Atheist Allen fast-engineering the Santa Fe freight line from Santa Fe to Chicago, and in the aftermath, they can't even find Atheist Allen's remains, even though Televangelist Tim saw where he landed when he was ejected from the cab of the engine and directs the crane operators to the exact place.

Would that be convincing enough?

 

[SkyWriting]

It's not ruled out if they have faith.

Exactly.

 

[Jnwaco]

It's usually directed at those who claim to have it. We demand proof from Creationists because, by and large, they outright claim to have proven the existence of God. Is it so wrong to ask to see that proof?

I'm sure that does occur. But, believing differently, understanding that if science is merely a way of knowing how God did it, and not the way to prove His existence, you're satisfied to merely stick to young earth creationist discussions?

How do you know God didn't create or destroy matter/energy after Gen 2? What would happen to your beliefs if scientists did observe that matter/energy could be created?

Actually, I think they have shown (though not observed) that pions could come into and out of existence, but only for very short amounts of time, and only by borrowing the energy from another subatomic particle. They won't be able to observe this, though, because it occurs in less than a planck unit of time (if I remember correctly).

Susskind has an interesting theory that's in a recent book that the universe is actually a holograph (the Holograph Principle) based on information eminating from the event horizon. I'm getting the book pretty soon. The theory came out of a debate he and Hawking had related to black holes.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes it does. Go read Quantum physics!

Yes, I know all matter pops in and out of existence like sparkle lights on a Christmas tree. Uh huh. I didn't understand the part about it all becoming lopsided where antimatter mostly disappears and actual matter ends up dominating our reality.

But I am trying to stick to practical rather than theoretical science. Cell phones require quantum explanations to operate but when we can squirt endless matter out of a gun and slime people with it I'll be impressed.

 

[Skaloop]

Oh, but God would handle the variables, would He not?

I don't think we're talking about variables in the same way. I'm using the word in the statistical sense. These need to be controlled for by experimentors in order to make their findings more confirmable.

For instance, say I compare vegetarians to people who eat exclusively Big Macs to see who lives longer. I find that vegetarians tend to live longer. However, I also find that vegetarians generally live healthier lives than people who eat Big Macs all the time. The problem then becomes that I cannot know whether it was vegetarianism specifically, or healthier lifestyle in general, that has vegetarians living longer. So I have to control for that variable by choosing vegetarians and Big Mac eaters that have the same general level of fitness. That way, I can say more definitively whether vegetarians live longer.

Just like He did during the Flood.

No, not like cleaning up the evidence of the flood. It's not cleaning up anything, it is making sure your sample groups are homogenous (or, as close to it as possible) across all traits except for the one you are testing.

Let's take MoonLancers misconception for a moment, and make it a head-on, instead of a T-bone.

What if every single time, without exception, a Christian is involved in a head-on collision --- say Televangelist Tim is on his bicycle and rides head-on into Atheist Allen fast-engineering the Santa Fe freight line from Santa Fe to Chicago, and in the aftermath, they can't even find Atheist Allen's remains, even though Televangelist Tim saw where he landed when he was ejected from the cab of the engine and directs the crane operators to the exact place.

Would that be convincing enough?

Every time? If it happened every time, then yeah, I'd find that awfully convincing. The part about not finding the atheist is superfluous and irrelevent, though. Even if it were just as simple as "Every single time a Christian is in an accident with an atheist, the atheist is killed and the Christian walks away" I would find that extremely convincing.

But we don't find such convincing situations. What we probably find is that there is little to no difference in the survival rates of Christians versus atheists in such situations.

 

[AV1611VET]

But we don't find such convincing situations. What we probably find is that there is little to no difference in the survival rates of Christians versus atheists in such situations.

Given that God says it is appointed unto men once to die, why would you expect there to be?

You don't think God is a Respecter of persons, do you?