God's will and quantum mechanics

[SelfSim]

I think your hung up with the idea that if not explained, it's not reason. But the action taken by reason doesn't need explaining. It's the result of said reason that it becomes alive.

The actions are an insufficient basis for us to distinguish between the dog's learned/trained behaviour, (or even an instinctive motivator), and it's reasoning.
The basis of my claim there, is absence of the matchup of the objective evidence of the definition of the words being used (as quoted by me previously) and the observational evidence of the dog expressing its own reasons. The latter (absent) evidence there, is needed for us to distinguish between your own mind and the dog's 'reasoning' capabilities, which would normally sway the inference drawn from the entire observational experience, (were it present).

 

[Neutral Observer]

Well, there ya go .. it is you just thinking that .. with no evidence for the dog thinking that. Its in your own words (see underline there).

But by the same token I have no proof by which to conclude that you're reasoning either. You may simply be a ChatBot.

BUT... my inability to prove that either you or my dog are reasoning doesn't constitute evidence that you're not reasoning. Regardless of whether or not it's provable, there's still evidence by which to conclude that it's probable. Beyond that we'd simply run up against the 'egocentric predicament', at which point we'll simply have to conclude that the only provable position is solipsism.

 

[SelfSim]

But by the same token I have no proof by which to conclude that you're reasoning either. You may simply be a ChatBot.

BUT... my inability to prove that either you or my dog are reasoning doesn't constitute evidence that you're not reasoning. Regardless of whether or not it's provable, there's still evidence by which to conclude that it's probable. Beyond that we'd simply run up against the 'egocentric predicament', at which point we'll simply have to conclude that the only provable position is solipsism.

Solipsism is not a practically useful when invoked on philosophically held, untestable beliefs.

Proofs are part of logic. I am speaking of objective evidence .. meaning: evidence gained via the scientific method.
That you can't prove something, or prove its non-existence, is a problem you have introduced by trying to use logic without an objectively evidenced 'going in' proposition.

I expressed the reasoning behind my claims by presenting objective evidence. One can test that for oneself. All one has to do is to look for the common meanings of those expressed ideas, whereas all you have done is restate what 'you think' a dog, or a ChatBot 'might' be doing in the absence of its expressed ideas using in-common (somehow shared) meanings.

 

[dlamberth]

The actions are an insufficient basis for us to distinguish between the dog's learned/trained behaviour, (or even an instinctive motivator), and it's reasoning.
The basis of my claim there, is absence of the matchup of the objective evidence of the definition of the words being used (as quoted by me previously) and the observational evidence of the dog expressing its own reasons. The latter (absent) evidence there, is needed for us to distinguish between your own mind and the dog's 'reasoning' capabilities, which would normally sway the inference drawn from the entire observational experience, (were it present).

Are you saying that dog's can not make decisions and solve problems?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you saying that dog's can not make decisions and solve problems?

I'll bet you think this is an example of what you believe, isn't it?

 

[dlamberth]

I'll bet you think this is an example of what you believe, isn't it?

I don't know what to think there. I've watched videos of a elephant painting for quite a while now, and I'm always left wondering. It is impressive though.

 

[SelfSim]

Are you saying that dog's can not make decisions and solve problems?

I'm waiting for the objective test/results, which would allow us to discount the anthropomorphic explanations (which are testable and affirming).

What is it?

 

[Halbhh]

In other words Adam and Eve's attainment of the knowledge of good and evil may have been a one time event, but learning to apply it is an ongoing process.

Which makes me wonder why God would choose to truncate this process rather than simply allowing it to play out? To have allowed us to struggle for so long, and for He Himself to have sacrificed so much, only to stop us before we realize our true potential seems to me to be outside of His original intent. The process isn't broken, it's just not finished.

We are still ongoing. Even this way:

8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you,a not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't know what to think there. I've watched videos of a elephant painting for quite a while now, and I'm always left wondering. It is impressive though.

What we're not seeing there is the amount of abuse the animal endured in being forced to replicate a pattern that it may not even relate with!

And where's the elephant's reason for replicating the pattern?

Where does the recognition of that pattern as being an elephant reside? The trainer's and the viewing audiences' human minds, or the elephant's mind?
One is evidenced based (ie: the human minds) by inferences based on the communication of human language based meanings, whilst the other is just belief based (via the same means) .. with *zip* for it residing in the elephant's mind, independently from any human influences.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm aware that violence in general has been decreasing for hundreds of years, but the claim I was responding to was that a god belief helps prevent wrongdoing, and I would like to see some evidence that this makes a significant difference, because, AIUI, secular societies experience no more (and possibly less) wrongdoing than religious ones (with the caveat previously mentioned).

It has for me; caused me to reform quite a lot.

 

[dlamberth]

I'm waiting for the objective test/results, which would allow us to discount the anthropomorphic explanations (which are testable and affirming).

What is it?

Ya, I suspect as much.
I like threads like this one that make me think. Interestingly, in some ways its striking right to the center of the spiritual path I'm on.

As an aside, not being objective at all, but it strikes me that it misses a lot to think that we Human Beings are the only animal that has the some capacity to reason.

Another point I've been contemplating on, I don't believe that we are as disconnected from animals as SelfSim seems to imply. If anyone is around animals enough, you can tell when the critters need something, are making decisions or figuring something out. So I can't help but reject SelfSim's anthropomorphic argument when right before our eyes we watch and see our animal friends (in their own way) reason things out.

 

[SelfSim]

As an aside, not being objective at all, but it strikes me that it misses a lot to think that we Human Beings are the only animal that has the some capacity to reason.

So(?) Don't think that!
There's no evidence for thinking that .. so don't think that! Its simple!

Another point I've been contemplating on, I don't believe that we are as disconnected from animals as SelfSim seems to imply.

Good! .. You don't have to believe that either .. and forget what SelfSim 'seems to imply' because that's exactly what kicks the belief process into action and you'll end up going straight back around that apparently never-ending loop of belief.

Instead, go look at the evidence when it is generated .. and then notice its absence when there isn't any!
Sheesh! I doesn't get any simpler than that .. all you have to do is look!

If anyone is around animals enough, you can tell when the critters need something, are making decisions or figuring something out. So I can't help but reject SelfSim's anthropomorphic argument when right before our eyes we watch and see our animal friends (in their own way) reason things out.

And that's just something we all like to believe .. but they're your reasons and not the animal's ... because that's where the evidence takes us .. and not following the evidence, more or less ensures that the belief that: animals reason independently from our own meaning of 'reason', will persist .. and until you follow the evidence, you will go on believing, (maybe for the rest of your days), that its 'the truth'!(?)
You might gain some feelings of pleasure and solace from the belief .. but that doesn't change that its still a belief.
(Where by 'a belief' there, I mean: 'Any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It has for me; caused me to reform quite a lot.

Not statistically significant - and I don't think you can have a society of one

 

[Halbhh]

Not statistically significant - and I don't think you can have a society of one

Ah, there are more than just a few Christians that can tell you they were profoundly changed. It's not going to be every last person in a church, but it will be more than just a few in many churches.

This even ties into the thread topic in a way. In the OP, a theory is offered for discussion on how (physically through physics) God is choosing things to happen in order to accomplish His purposes. A hypothesis about how He might be intervening. In the text of scripture, God specifically is said to work to help us change for the better, including sending us trials or such that might help us to change. So, one motivation for this OP theory is trying to offer a hypothesis on how that might be done. Of course, many hypotheses about how God might intervene are possible.

 

[dlamberth]

It has for me; caused me to reform quite a lot.

As Other than Christian, still the same for myself.

 

[Halbhh]

As Other than Christian, still the same for myself.

You mean that becoming aware that God sees the things you do helped change you, or instead that hearing of Jesus's deeds and words helped change you?

 

[SelfSim]

This even ties into the thread topic in a way. In the OP, a theory is offered for discussion on how (physically through physics) God is choosing things to happen in order to accomplish His purposes. A hypothesis about how He might be intervening. In the text of scripture, God specifically is said to work to help us change for the better, including sending us trials or such that might help us to change. So, one motivation for this OP theory is trying to offer a hypothesis on how that might be done. Of course, many hypotheses about how God might intervene are possible.

Show me how 'God' is operationally definable, in principle ... because in the absence of such a demonstration, your usage of the term 'hypothesis' is without an objective context .. (and is thus not addressable within the scientific context).
You have not 'offered any hypothesis' at all .. let alone not having demonstrated any 'possible' ones.

Pseudoscience in the making, which assumes/posits the existence of the conclusion before testing for it, I see appearing before our eyes:

 

[dlamberth]

You mean that becoming aware that God sees the things you do helped change you, or instead that hearing of Jesus's deeds and words helped change you?

What changed me is not only seeing but also experiencing every human being as well as every life form as an activity of God, and my learning to treat them as such.

 

[Halbhh]

Show me how 'God' is operationally definable, in principle ... because in the absence of such a demonstration, your usage of the term 'hypothesis' is without an objective context .. (and is thus not addressable within the scientific context).
You have not 'offered any hypothesis' at all .. let alone not having demonstrated any 'possible' ones.

Pseudoscience in the making, which assumes/posits the existence of the conclusion before testing for it, I see appearing before our eyes.

This thread isn't a science thread really, but more a speculative theology that has a speculation about physics.

In contrast, when we speak of 'God' we have for instance context like this:

"No one has ever seen God" -- 1rst John 1:18 for instance

That's in one way (just the one) somewhat like 'dark matter' in astrophysics: no one has seen it. But of course God isn't some such thing as matter that has no intelligence or agency, but is understood to be able to choose whether we can find Him and such.... Ergo, you won't see Him until He chooses.

So, this isn't really a science topic thread, but some hybrid. You can call it pseudoscience if you need to, but that sounds sorta emotionally reactive (to my ears). After all you are at Christian Forums, where of course the existence of God is a possible thing. Since by definition you cannot observe or falsify God, He isn't subject to the scientific method by definition. Ergo, it's sorta...beside the point to try to point out it's not science.

 

[SelfSim]

This thread isn't a science thread really, but more a speculative theology that has a speculation about physics.

In contrast, when we speak of 'God' we have for instance context like this:

"No one has ever seen God" -- 1rst John 1:18 for instance

That's in one way (just the one) somewhat like 'dark matter' in astrophysics: no one has seen it. But of course God isn't some such thing as matter that has no intelligence or agency, but is understood to be able to choose whether we can find Him and such.... Ergo, you won't see Him until He chooses.

So you just roll over some personally chosen, highly subjective 'definition' of God which you you present there, as though its just a given, (ie: your underlined words above: 'of course') .. then make a comparison between that, and the carefully (operationally) defined concept of dark matter .. and then expect me to accept (your words):
'You can have whatever unique view of physics you like, if you learn from me, you'll get a very mainstream view'??
Sure .. right.

So, this isn't really a science topic thread, but some hybrid. You can call it pseudoscience if you need to, but that sounds sorta emotionally reactive (to my ears).

So you're looking to science's objective, method based, operational definition of dark matter (for eg) as being an example of the type of data you need for fitting to your model, which is one of the testable distinguishing features of pseduoscience in the image I provided: ('Science vs Pseudoscience').
And you see that as being emotionally reactive??

After all you are at Christian Forums, where of course the existence of God is a possible thing. Since by definition you cannot observe or falsify God, He isn't subject to the scientific method by definition. Ergo, it's sorta...beside the point to try to point out it's not science.

Then mixing 'not science' into a thread having Quantum Mechanics in its subject, in a Physical Sciences forum, is nothing more than gibberish pseudoscience.