To Christians (not an attack, but an honest query)

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I think it takes a greater humility to admit to yourself that all evidence points to your life being a relatively meaningless existence created simply by chance for an insignificantly small amount of time with an insignificantly small region of spatial influence. To think that the supreme creater is watching over you and ranking every move you make seems a little arrogant.


[/ QUOTE ]

Take away the word "simply" and I don't see how the two things you are contrasting are in contradiction to one another.

If you could see that the concept of randomness is a human creation to explain events which are too complicated for our understanding or control, and not something inherently present in the universe, then there may be a chance we would see eye-to-eye on this one.

As an example, consider a coin flip. Is it really random? For all intents and purposes it is because it has been manufactured to be very close to perfectly symmetrical and when we flip it the minute forces required to determine which side it lands on are well beyond our control and detection abilities. But it is still a deterministic event in the philosophical sense, as is everything we call "random".

Even quantum mechanics which claims there is inherent randomness in the universe only shows that the way information is transferred to us (ie. via photons) limits our ability to know the position of certain particles at a certain point in time so the most we could ever know is a probability. It does not say the actual position itself is random. If we had the ability to know positions of particles without using photons then again there would be no randomness, so again we conveniently use the term "randomness" to describe something which is beyond our abilities to detect. Whether it is because of the limitations of the universe itself or because of OUR limitations is up for philosophical debate, but the truly arrogant position is that it is not we but the universe which is limited imo.

[ QUOTE ]
My personal view is that there is most likely no God. I think this partly because of the highly disparate starting chances of say a person in America versus a person in Zambia to live a pleasant life. If you can live comfortably with relatively little effort it is easy to see God everywhere. If many of the people you know starve to death, I bet it isn't so easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you explain, then, that the USA has so many more atheists (as a % of population) than most third world countries?

[David Sklansky]

"If we had the ability to know positions of particles without using photons then again there would be no randomness, so again we conveniently use the term "randomness" to describe something which is beyond our abilities to detect."

Physicists out there. Is that true?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

As an example, consider a coin flip. Is it really random?


[/ QUOTE ]

Very good post.

I had a debate with maurile sometime ago where I tried to make the point that chance is just our euphemism for ignorance. Here
is the start of that debate.

Two quotes from the net about Hiesenberg's Uncertainty Principle:

[ QUOTE ]

We do not know if this indeterminism is actually the way the Universe works, because the theory of Quantum Mechanics is probably incomplete. That is, we do not know if the Universe actually behaves in a probabilistic manner (there are many possible paths a particle can follow and the observed path is chosen probabilistically) or if the Universe is deterministic in the sense that I could predict the path a particle will follow with 100 % certainty.


[/ QUOTE ]

Found
here.

and

[ QUOTE ]

Light can be considered as being made up of packets of energy called photons. To measure the position and velocity of any particle, you would first shine a light on it, then detect the reflection. On a macroscopic scale, the effect of photons on an object is insignificant. Unfortunately, on subatomic scales, the photons that hit the subatomic particle will cause it to move significantly, so although the position has been measured accurately, the velocity of the particle will have been altered. By learning the position, you have rendered any information you previously had on the velocity useless. In other words, the observer affects the observed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Found


here.

Think about it though. Even if every scientist who ever lived asserted that he was 100% certain that genuine randomness exists we could discount that. Such a statement requires omniscience because there is no way we can know that what we observe as randomness isn't actually occuring due to the design and/or influence of God.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Very good post.



[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you Sir. I find yours to be normally quite sharp also.

Regarding your last paragraph I'm not sure we are able to tell the difference between things requiring omniscience and things requiring some amount of knowledge much greater than what we have now but less than omniscience. Still, my subjective opinion is that we are best off not fooling ourselves into believing we have the potential for omniscience and just leaving questions requiring that potential in the hands of God.

[David Sklansky]

"there is no way we can know that what we observe as randomness isn't actually occuring due to the design and/or influence of God."

But if he was influencing things why would he have his results conform exactly according to probability distributions? In other words if every time I flip a coin he decides what it will be, why does he choose in such a way that the results conform exactly to what they would be if there was no one choosing? Is he actively trying to fool us?

[David Sklansky]

"Think about it though. Even if every scientist who ever lived asserted that he was 100% certain that genuine randomness exists we could discount that. Such a statement requires omniscience because there is no way we can know that what we observe as randomness isn't actually occuring due to the design and/or influence of God."

What follows is a bit nasty but it must be said. And it doesn't relate to religion.

First lets change your post a little to make its non religious aspect clear. Change it to: If every scientist who ever lived was 100% certain of x we could discount that. And the reason is y.

Any statement like this on your part is complete nonsense. Because you are asserting either that the scientists never thought of y or that they have, and that they are wrong. You have no more right to say that then you would to disagree with all the grandmasters who ever lived about the right chess move. Unless you are a top grandmaster yourself, or, in this class a world class logician and scientist.

IF all the best scientists were actually 100% certain about anything, and you disagreed with them, you would be wrong. Period.

[spaminator101]

NotReady is not saying that we could completely throw it out the window
hes just saying that even if all scientist were 100% sure about x then it still would not be certain

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But if he was influencing things why would he have his results conform exactly according to probability distributions?


[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt God does what He does with our math foremost in His thoughts. And I believe probability works because of God. Probability assumes order in the universe and seeks to predict the future based on incomplete knowledge of the present - something totally impossible without overall order, system, design. I also believe that anything that appears totally random to us is nevertheless under God's authority and control and that He has a plan that includes everything. We may never get past HUP because the design is beyond our capability but that doesn't mean it's beyond God's capability.

[ QUOTE ]

Is he actively trying to fool us?


[/ QUOTE ]
We are finite and sinful, filled with arrogance and unwarranted certainty. We are perfectly capable of fooling ourselves.

But the Bible does mention that God hides things from the "wise of this age" and reveals them to "babes" because the "world in its foolishness did not come to know God".

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

IF all the best scientists were actually 100% certain about anything, and you disagreed with them, you would be wrong. Period.


[/ QUOTE ]

Premise 1: Omniscience is required for x.
Premise 2: No scientist is or ever will be omniscient.
Conclusion: No scientist can ever x.

[David Sklansky]

Can anybody translate that? Perhaps Pair The Board. It looks like one of his posts.