A Math Magic God Problem

[David Sklansky]

I want to pin down Pair The Board and others as to what exactly their contention is regarding using probability to measure the likelihood that an event was caused by God or some other supernatural power.

Consider this scenario.

A man bursts upon the scene proclaiming that he was sent by God to convert people to his religion. As evidence, he does something astonishing and seemingly unexplainable. It doesn't matter what. Perhaps he makes the sun appear purple or he puts random books into his briefcase and then takes them out five seconds later and they are translated into Chinese. For months, no one can think of any way he could do this demonstrtion via trickery, and sceptics reluctantly come to the conclusion that he is probably telling the truth.

Then one day a famous magician duplicates the "trick". And he explains how he did it. Sceptics breathe a sigh of relief. But the guy doesn't change his claims. He simply admits that this brilliant magician figured out a non supernatural way to do the same thing. But it isn't how he does it. He does it with God's powers.

My question is whether it makes sense at this point to try to rigorously come up with a number that captures the probability that the guy is a fraud. Commonsensically almost everyone would be virtually certain he was, once a magician duplicated what he did. But is there a RIGOROUS mathematical or statistical argument that would agree with common sense and perhaps even help assign a precise probaility to him being a fraud. My guess is yes. How bout some mathmeticians and statisticians weighing in.

[Shine]

call a feat X "irrational" if it was done using supernatural powers.
call a feat X "rational" otherwise

Irrational feats have probabilities roughly similar to the probability of the existance of supernatural powers, Q. Rational feats have roughly high probabilities.

So we now see this SPECIFIC feat X (a SPECIFIC event.) What's the probability that it is irrational?
Bayes: P(X irrational | X) = P(X | X irrational)P(X irrational)/P(X)

P(X) = 1 (we just saw it.) The probability of X given that X is irrational is roughly Q.

So P(X irrational | X) = Q * P(X irrational)

Now that X is shown to be possible to be rational, P(X irrational) decreases substantially*, and thus P(X irrational | X) = the probability of X being accomplished by supernatural powers also decreases.

(*More on this complicated first sentence "Now that... substantially" later.)

[Shine]

To complete my discussion, let me now go over my bolded claim in the previous reply.

"Given X can be performed rationally, P(X irrational) decreases."

Well, again, assign Q the probability that supernatural powers exist. Say X can only be performed irrationally with probability 1-Z.

IF X CAN BE PERFORMED RATIONALLY OR IRRATIONALLY (prob. Z):
Then 1-Q of the time, X can ONLY performed rationally.
Q of the time, X was performed rationally (say probability R) or it was performed irrationally.

IF X CAN ONLY BE PERFORMED IRRATIONALLY (probability 1-Z):
Then X is always irrational.

So given that X can be performed rationally, then we have restricted our sample space. The probability of X being irrational, is (1-Z) + ZQ(1-R). This is also "essentially" Q, since P(X irra) and Q are obviously directly correlated.

But by being given that Z = 1, it clearly drops. If you believe that Q is very low, like most atheists, then the majority of the argument that the person doing X had over you, was that Z was believed to be very low, and thus "essentially" Q = (1-Z)/(1-Z+ZR) was very high. This argument falls over fast once it is shown Z = 1.

[Piers]

No. Probabilistic estimates can only exist within a model. Whether such a model applies to reality is purely subjective. With something as obscure as religious belief you are not going to get a generally acceptable model with more refinement than the obvious trivial one.

Some probabilistic reasoning might appear to be applicable to a god existence. But really they are being applied to an as yet undefined probability space. ‘However you set it up this will be true’ sort of arguments. But if it’s not practical to use a non-trivial model encompassing a god’s existence, such reasoning is just hot air.

Besides tackling a god’s existence directly is going too far in one step. First look for evidence and understanding of an environmental framework that could support a god. It’s a big step from imposable things happening to a god exits and its important not to read too much into your experimental evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
A man bursts upon the scene proclaiming that he was sent by God to convert people to his religion . As evidence, he does something astonishing and seemingly unexplainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that the man clams the astonishing thing is due to god is of no significance. Many if not most people seeing such an imposable event are likely to attribute to god, just because it’s so astonishing. Its 'conceivable' that he has been deluded into believing the truth, but that would just be a coincidence.

[Phil153]

I think David is coming from this angle: It's obvious that duplication of magic lowers the probability of that event involving real magic to almost zero. It's so obvious that there should be some way to model it mathematically.

Here's my take. The argument is a historical one. All of human history is full of extraordinary supernatural claims for ordinary events, many of which stood for years or centuries. The vast majority were later proven to be frauds, delusion, or simple tricks, and there is no compelling evidence for the ones that were indeterminate.

It's no different to the argument that the sun will come up tomorrow. Imagine you lived 2000 years ago with no knowledge of what the Sun was. Now imagine you're 40 years old, and someone offers you a prop bet for $10 at 1 to 100,000 odds that the sun won't come up tomorrow. You'd be mad not to take it. The more trials we have of something we don't understand, but which always point in one direction and never in another (despite excitement to the contrary), the more obvious it becomes that that there is some underlying process at work which is causing that direction. On the other hand, if we'd arrived on this Earth today, with no knowledge of the laws of physics or human psychology, the numbers would be vastly different. Maybe around 50/50.

And when there are strong psychological reasons (think fraudster or NotReady) to believe in the other direction which is constantly being postulated and shot down , it become even more of a slam dunk.

[Shine]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Probabilistic estimates can only exist within a model. Whether such a model applies to reality is purely subjective. With something as obscure as religious belief you are not going to get a generally acceptable model with more refinement than the obvious trivial one.

Some probabilistic reasoning might appear to be applicable to a god existence. But really they are being applied to an as yet undefined probability space. ‘However you set it up this will be true’ sort of arguments. But if it’s not practical to use a non-trivial model encompassing a god’s existence, such reasoning is just hot air.

[/ QUOTE ]

The italicized parts of what you said, I agree with, the bolded parts, I don't.

I think the rest of your response dodges the question. Here, Sklansky asks for an argument that reflects the common sense opinion that, given the events in the story, one is much more likely to believe that the "feat" was a fraud.

Here, my argument is not "hot air." I've shown a direct relationship, for example in the latest post, between the existence of supernatural powers and whether it is possible to perform the feat that we saw, without supernatural power. This confirms conclusively what we already knew from common sense.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Probabilistic estimates can only exist within a model. Whether such a model applies to reality is purely subjective. With something as obscure as religious belief you are not going to get a generally acceptable model with more refinement than the obvious trivial one.

Some probabilistic reasoning might appear to be applicable to a god existence. But really they are being applied to an as yet undefined probability space. ‘However you set it up this will be true’ sort of arguments. But if it’s not practical to use a non-trivial model encompassing a god’s existence, such reasoning is just hot air.

Besides tackling a god’s existence directly is going too far in one step. First look for evidence and understanding of an environmental framework that could support a god. It’s a big step from imposable things happening to a god exits and its important not to read too much into your experimental evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
A man bursts upon the scene proclaiming that he was sent by God to convert people to his religion . As evidence, he does something astonishing and seemingly unexplainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that the man clams the astonishing thing is due to god is of no significance. Many if not most people seeing such an imposable event are likely to attribute to god, just because it’s so astonishing. Its 'conceivable' that he has been deluded into believing the truth, but that would just be a coincidence.

[/ QUOTE ]


PairTheBoard

[Shine]

Why the run around? What is wrong with my argument?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Why the run around? What is wrong with my argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

To begin with you say this:

[ QUOTE ]
Irrational feats have probabilities roughly similar to the probability of the existance of supernatural powers, Q.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making the prior assumption,

P(Existence of Supernatural Powers) = Q

On what Probability Space does that probability live? That's the whole point. You have none. That is a subjective probability statement not a rigorous one. The OP is asking for Rigor here.

[ QUOTE ]
My question is whether it makes sense at this point to try to rigorously come up with a number that captures the probability that the guy is a fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, your notation here,

[ QUOTE ]
P(X irrational | X) = P(X | X irrational)P(X irrational)/P(X)


[/ QUOTE ]

makes no sense. I suspect this is not your area of expertise.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

Your arguments are certainly reasonable and persuasive. I think what they boil down to is that the Working Assumption of Physics - known laws of Physics apply continuously in the past present and future - has proved so reliable for making accurate predictions of Events, past and future, that it only makes common sense to adopt the Assumption as our Best Working Hypothesis. I find this compelling common sense and therefore find your argument reasonable and persuasive.

Therefore, I would need extraordinary evidence to become convinced of the occurrence of an Event that did not conform to that Assumption. The evidence I have when this man first performs his Feat is His Word for it, And the fact that we've searched and could not see how laws of physics explain it. That evidence is only good enough to get me curious about it. After it's been explained, the only evidence left is the Man's Word for It. I would not generally find that compelling extraordinary evidence to discard the Working Assumption of Physics that has proved so reliable in the past. The Man may be a fraud, he may be deluded, or he may be speaking in symbolic language and trying to communicate something entirely different than the literal interpretation his words indicate.

Here's the thing. In all that discussion, which I see as a reasonable way to look at it, nowhere did I need to resort to the authority of some phony claim to mathematical rigor involving use of psuedo-math and psuedo-probability statements. I object to such sophomoric appeal to phony authority on more than just principle. I also see it producing faulty inferences.

For example, DS insists that every time we encounter a Freak Event that stumps us, where we can't see how known laws of physics can explain it, and even more vaguely can't see how even "yet to be discovered" laws of physics could possibly explain it, we must pump up the psuedo-probability that maybe God Did it. That's the kind of absurd inference Sklansky gets with his little pretend games with psuedo-probability statements.

As I look into a hopeful future for the human race, where we may have billions of years to explore and discover new things about our Universe, I fully expect us to encounter one such Freakish Event after another. Sklansky would throw us back into the superstituous attitudes of the past whereby everytime they encoutered something they couldn't understand they attributed it to God! Sklansky would not do as they did and give it a 100% probabilility. Just a pumped up partial probability. But it is the same superstitous attitude. Sklansky just puts a psuedo-probability face on it.

I believe this perspective of mine is important for people to consider. Whatever the word "God" might meaningfully point to, our approach to it is not by way of such Freak Events that puzzle known laws of physics. This perspective offends everybody. Athiests don't like it, even though it defends an Atheist perspective, because it pulls one of their rugs out from under them. Many Religious people don't like it, even though it defends approaching "God", because it pulls one of their rugs out from under them. Thus is the way of a new paradigm.

PairTheBoard

[carlo]

As noted in the Bible Christ Jesus performed many healings(restoration of sight to the blind,the lame walk,the crippled restored,etc.) in addition to turning water into wine and raising Lazarus from the dead. Don't think your "Laws of Physics" can even begin to have a say here unless you are saying "Laws of Physics Past,Present and Future" which really gets you off the hook for you are arrogating that very thing which many have subscribed to a Creator. No substance at the alter of science for we are talking of human beings ,not contrived parsimony of substance.

Back to the point. In the first century there lived a man who performed miraculous healings(sight to the blind, lame walked, brought a young girl back from the dead,turned water into wine) and is stated to have done the same feats of Christ Jesus. His name was Apollonius of Tyana.

Questions:

1)Does Probability have anything to say here?
2)What logical conclusions do you make from this?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
As noted in the Bible Christ Jesus performed many healings(restoration of sight to the blind,the lame walk,the crippled restored,etc.) in addition to turning water into wine and raising Lazarus from the dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in this case, the evidence we have are stories in the Bible.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't think your "Laws of Physics" can even begin to have a say here unless you are saying "Laws of Physics Past,Present and Future" which really gets you off the hook for you are arrogating that very thing which many have subscribed to a Creator

[/ QUOTE ]

We're not "arrogating" anything. The Working Assumption of science is that laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present,and future. It's an Assumption. We don't know it to be fact. But in our limited exposure to objective data, the Assumption has proved very reliable in producing accurate predictions about past and future events.

It's only common sense for us to require extraordinary evidence for us to discard the Assumption. Do "stories in the Bible" constitute such extraordinary evidence? Considering the nature of those kinds of writings, among other things, NO. Not for the NonReligious person. But for the Religous person where the extraordinary factor of Faith is added, the answer could be yes.

[ QUOTE ]
1)Does Probability have anything to say here?


[/ QUOTE ]

Strictly speaking, the mathematics of probability requires a well defined mathematical probability model in order to "say" anything. There is no such model here.

Loosely speaking, people come to have a subjective degree of conviction about the truth of propositions. Most NonReligous people will see the stories in the Bible depicting Events that don't conform to the working assumption of Science, as just that. Stories. They draw that conclusion because of their experience with story telling and their experience with the record of reliability for the working assumption of science.

They might express their conviction about this interpretation of the stories as "Highly doubtful". Or, loosely speaking, they might say, "Highly unlikely". It has the same meaning. However, they would be incorrect to claim mathematical authority for rigorous mathematical use of the term "probability". They simply don't have such mathematical rigor.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

I have two remaining points of contention with you. The first of which you can't refute since you are not a mind reader. Which is that you are wrong when you think I throw around math terms in order to add credence to my points. I do it only as a short cut so I don't have to keep repeating the "argument" that applies to the magician, the Salem Witch Trials, the contention that the Bible makes good predictions and is therefore probably true, or whatever. I don't do it to add weight to the "argument". If the math terms, stictly speaking, don't apply, so be it. That is why I posted this thread. But the "argument" stands by itself and I never meant to prop it up with technical terminology.

As to my talking about events that are not only not explainable by present day laws of physics, but also not explainable by what might be future laws, I think I can do that. Even though we don't know what future laws will be. Because we do know that they will have some sort of generality to them and some sort of reasoning behind them. They are not likely to be something like "you can't go faster than the speed of light unless your name is Hiram". They are more likely to be "you can't go faster than light unless you can duck into the seventh dimension and then come back". So if Hiram does indeed outrun light, we can assume it was probably due to a reason similar to the second one rather than the first. But if millions of Hirams do it and, only them, I'd call it a miracle rather than try to claim that the first reason is a physics law.

Obviously there are many hypothetical events that don't fit so neatly into one category (obeying future reasonable laws of physics) or the other (my idea of a miracle) but I don't think the distinction is silly. Arthur Clarke made the famous statement that any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I disagree. If Isaac Newton was shown a television and a time machine, I'm quite sure he would identify only the second as magic.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
So in this case, the evidence we have are stories in the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apollonius of Tyana is not a figure of the Bible. Classical history reveals his existance.

[ QUOTE ]
We're not "arrogating" anything. The Working Assumption of science is that laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present,and future. It's an Assumption. We don't know it to be fact. But in our limited exposure to objective data, the Assumption has proved very reliable in producing accurate predictions about past and future events.

[/ QUOTE ]

A scientific hypothesis states that at one time the moon separated from the earth. I find it hard to believe that present scientific laws(whatever that may be) could account for that particular event. The "big bang"(theory again) certainly takes to question present "laws" vis a vis "past laws". If one could sit as an observer at the beginning of time(for science-big bang) do you really BELIEVE that the laws of physics are the same as now?

For anyone who cares to clarify-what EXACTLY are these laws of physics that the scientist lays his head on? In this time technology is what most people are impressed with but to expect the theoretical scientist to explain the world and especially MATTER is a voyage into non comprehension.

It's an illusion that technology comes from theory-airflight, radio, penicillin, steam engine,computer etc., are all the result of practical men given results unexpected by their thought and thusly technology. The practical scientist,engineer,inventor,creative genius is our modern day names for these men.Technology is what most ,but not all, see as "science" and in this they are impresssed.

The World/Cosmos offers similarity to a Beethoven symphony(not a strictured logical conundrum)-the idea that chimpanzees could produce the same is bad science and bad thinking.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
you are wrong when you think I throw around math terms in order to add credence to my points. I do it only as a short cut

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I suggest you seek to clarify your arguments and avoid statements like this,

[ QUOTE ]
DS -
My math also does not give a figure for the likelihood of a God who won't or can't stray from science or statistics laws. It only applies to Gods who can and do. Which is the one most people believe in.

[/ QUOTE ]

or this

[ QUOTE ]
DS -
Math tells us that unlikely explanations become likely explanations if the alternatives are ridiculous explanations. Math doesn't show that an explanation is ridiculous. To do that one uses statistics rather than math.

[/ QUOTE ]

or this,

[ QUOTE ]
DS -
Before DNA and its mutations were discovered, it might be reasonable to make a lot of the fact that there is little or no experimental evidence. Even more so if there was ever any evidence of a designer who sometimes bypasses scientific laws. But given there isn't, and given we know of a theoretical way for species to mutate into other species, math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Math tells us" certainly Looks like an appeal to the authority of Math. You're right, I'm not a mind reader. I can only read what you write. I know there is a principle of inference you are trying to get at and apply. The problems come in clairifying the principle and determining how well it applies in the circumstances under discussion. Just saying "Math tells us" hardly does the job. You are certainly smart enough to do the job right if you would quit being so lazy with your shortcut language.

I realize this principle often comes to light in a mathematical probablistic setting. That doesn't mean we have that setting at hand. It's a principle I appy myself in coming to similiar conclusions as you some of the time. But it's not an automatic thing you can apply haphazardly. And sometimes I think you come to incorrect conclusions doing just that.

[ QUOTE ]
As to my talking about events that are not only not explainable by present day laws of physics, but also not explainable by what might be future laws, I think I can do that. Even though we don't know what future laws will be. Because we do know that they will have some sort of generality to them and some sort of reasoning behind them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you can possibly believe that description is in any way clear enough to meaningfully serve as a foundation for broad definitive conclusions. It just looks like fuzzy guesswork.

[ QUOTE ]
They are not likely to be something like "you can't go faster than the speed of light unless your name is Hiram". They are more likely to be "you can't go faster than light unless you can duck into the seventh dimension and then come back"

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think that example transforms the fuzzy guesswork of your previous statement into a clear definition that everybody will agree holds and from which we can work?

[ QUOTE ]
So if Hiram does indeed outrun light, we can assume it was probably due to a reason similar to the second one rather than the first. But if millions of Hirams do it and, only them, I'd call it a miracle rather than try to claim that the first reason is a physics law.


[/ QUOTE ]

And you are going to be the judge of the Freak Anomalies we may very well encounter exploring the Universe in Future Ages? You think you can determine which fall into the Miracle Category ala Hiram and which don't? Before you even see them? You are as bad as the prehistoric people who saw lightning and decided it must be a Miracle attributed to Thor.


[ QUOTE ]
Obviously there are many hypothetical events that don't fit so neatly into one category (obeying future reasonable laws of physics) or the other (my idea of a miracle) but I don't think the distinction is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may have an idea in there that's worth talking about. But you've been applying it like some kind of Law of Sklansky by which you insist people accept certain conclusions. One of which has been the charge of Bias for Athiests who don't buy your argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Arthur Clarke made the famous statement that any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I disagree. If Isaac Newton was shown a television and a time machine, I'm quite sure he would identify only the second as magic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like you have an idea that may be worth talking about, so did Clarke. There's a principle there but it might not rise to anything like "Clarke's Law".

The Fundamental Principle that I see and have provided on other threads is this:

If "God" were tinkering with the universe, his magical tricks would be indistinguishable from natural events for which there are shortfalls in scientific explanation.

Some have said this is too trivially true to be of value. On the other hand, I take it you think it's false and you could tell the difference ala Hiram, at least some of the time. Who knows, maybe this too is just an idea that doesn't rise to a Fundamental Principle. However, I am not so persuaded by your Hiram example.

PairTheBoard

[BluffTHIS!]

David,

I want to make a couple points on miracles, one of which I've made before. And that is that I, and most other christians, believe that God has performed and still is performing miracles. But that the vast majority of them over time are subtle coincidence type of stuff where He guides normal physical processes in a way that is consonant with the range those processes possess, as well as the experience believers have of Him in their daily lives. All of which is small unprovable by science type of "interferences". Also, even regarding the "big" type of biblical miracles or later ones like the miracle of the sun at Fatima in 1917, that are manifested to large numbers of people in a specific area (instead of just one like the small stuff), and also clearly seem at least to violate the laws of physics, *still* are very small percentage of the total of reported so-called "big" miracles. Like in way less than 1%. Most of all that stuff are indeed either lies, psychological delustions or poorly understood (for the time) physical phenomena.

My second point is that I realize that you and many non-believers have a problem with this because you can't understand why God would choose to act in this mostly unprovable way over time. But clearly such a manner of acting is possible if one grants that a Creator can interfere after the initial creation of the universe.

Also you deny the central probability. And that is given that a God did create the quantum singularity from which the Big Bang came, and which is clearly and will *ever* be unexplainable by science, that the background probability is that such a God will continue to "interfere". And the reason is that the initial act of creation of the quantum singularity and the physical laws which lead to its present form 14 billion years later, is FAR greater of an "interference" than any subsequent ones claimed by religious believers, with the possible exception of the resurrection of Our Lord. In other words, if He cared enough to start the ball rolling, it is highly probable He cares where and how that ball rolls. To maintain otherwise is preposterous. And hence the reason the atheists you take to task here sometimes are so resistant to first cause arguments, because they know where they logically will lead.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in this case, the evidence we have are stories in the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apollonius of Tyana is not a figure of the Bible. Classical history reveals his existance.


[/ QUOTE ]

Notice I did not inlude your discussion of Apollonius when I quoted you. That's because I'm not familiar with it. So the case I was talking about was the Jesus case. That's the one I'm familiar with. That's the one I quoted from your post. And that's the one I was talking about.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We're not "arrogating" anything. The Working Assumption of science is that laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present,and future. It's an Assumption. We don't know it to be fact. But in our limited exposure to objective data, the Assumption has proved very reliable in producing accurate predictions about past and future events.

[/ QUOTE ]

A scientific hypothesis states that at one time the moon separated from the earth. I find it hard to believe that present scientific laws(whatever that may be) could account for that particular event.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they make a pretty good case these days for the theory of a collision-type event with a large astroid-planetoid-type body. Computer simulations based on known laws of physics.

[ QUOTE ]
The "big bang"(theory again) certainly takes to question present "laws" vis a vis "past laws". If one could sit as an observer at the beginning of time(for science-big bang) do you really BELIEVE that the laws of physics are the same as now?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not an expert in this area. I think they are having some troubles with exactly that question. My impression is it's all very speculative. But notice I said that "known laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present, and future" is just a Working Assumption of Science. Notice I said it is not a Known Fact. I never said it might not be discarded or ammended in the future. But it has proved very Reliable for predicting events. Would you want to just haphazardly ignore it? Do you think it is worthless? What do YOU require to set it aside?

PairTheBoard

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not an expert in this area. I think they are having some troubles with exactly that question. My impression is it's all very speculative. But notice I said that "known laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present, and future" is just a Working Assumption of Science. Notice I said it is not a Known Fact. I never said it might not be discarded or ammended in the future. But it has proved very Reliable for predicting events. Would you want to just haphazardly ignore it? Do you think it is worthless? What do YOU require to set it aside?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I know an antagonism to current scientific theory would not be productive for the thought processes involved are really of an extraordinary quality. There is a compulsion in thought which carries a person along within its own reality.

My posts(lately anyway) have tried to present some breadth to a discussion and hopefully would enjoin one to pause and consider a larger tapestry.Replacement of science is not the point but a metamorphoses of science is definitely possible and in this the hypothesizing mind has to consider that materiality is the lynch pin of present scientific thought and its barrier to truth.

An example is the particle wave duality of modern physics.Particularity is assumed until experimental results display a non materiality. The reflection of mirrors of the Michelosen-Morley experiment assumes a pure reflector. Logically one can only say that the speed of light in this case is a function of the reflector which has its own characteristics. One can only say that light travels from a reflected mirror at a certain speed and therefore the speed is a function of the reflector not the intrinsic speed of light. In this case the assumption is that we have "pure light" and "pure mirror". This is not the case.

Another is the sighting of color through a prism.Modern thought has light broken into pieces of red,green,blue,etc. So light contains the colors within itself. This is material thought which doesn't conceive that the color is the result of the work of light in the medium.

The above examples are directly related to the materialistic bias and refusal to see the world as it is. The pieces of light within is a grave error in thinking. If a boxer hits his opponent in the arm and leaves bruises the bruises were not in the fist of the boxer but the result of the impact. As Goethe said" colors are the deeds and sufferings of light". This statement is not some mystical mumbo-jumbo but a reality which can be ascertained in thought.

The idea that one needs an all encompassing thought(big bang theory) in order to be truth takes one from the experimental evidence which is clamored for in the halls of science. Each scientist working with the realization of a non material basis can work with light and will be able to garner its true nature. So a community of scientists working in nature will bring these truths to clarification and be brought to all of us.








[/ QUOTE ]

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Also you deny the central probability. And that is given that a God did create the quantum singularity from which the Big Bang came, and which is clearly and will *ever* be unexplainable by science, that the background probability is that such a God will continue to "interfere". And the reason is that the initial act of creation of the quantum singularity and the physical laws which lead to its present form 14 billion years later, is FAR greater of an "interference" than any subsequent ones claimed by religious believers, with the possible exception of the resurrection of Our Lord. In other words, if He cared enough to start the ball rolling, it is highly probable He cares where and how that ball rolls. To maintain otherwise is preposterous. And hence the reason the atheists you take to task here sometimes are so resistant to first cause arguments, because they know where they logically will lead.


[/ QUOTE ]


How do you like dem probabilities David? Do you think they have anything to do with mathematics? Just like with your use of the terms, they indicate his subjective opinion about how persuasive the observation is for the conclusion he says he has some conviction for.

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, if He cared enough to start the ball rolling, it is highly probable He cares where and how that ball rolls.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pure nonsense from a Jesus-loves-me fried brain.

If God did exist, it is highly improbable he would have anything to do with human affairs. Think about it. Step out of your silly Christian indoctrination and think of the scale of the universe, of imagination, of thought. Think like a Tibetan Buddhist for a while.

Why on Earth would God create the universe to have a petty relationship with some creatures in a tiny speck of it? It made sense to an oppressed race in the crowded deserts of the middle east, but with our understanding today it's monstrously absurd. If God/the afterlife is anything, it'd be like the Tibetan model - we are probably part of a number of planes of spiritual existence, where God exists as a source of everything. To think that God had sent his "son" to save us from a place of fire is the funniest thing imaginable in this day and age.

Think of the scale of existence. Why is it unlikely to you that God created trillions of petri dishes just like our universe, where life could teem and flourish and develop into everything imaginable? If something as vast and grand as God existed, it is inconceivable to me that he would stop at creating something as petty and hilarious as the Earth and the human race, and stop there. It is also inconceivable that he would intervene in the system he had created in order to satisfy the desires of a creature losing homeostasis from inadequate food. Do you see why?

BTW, how does your model of God-love account for aliens? Did he send them a Jesus-equivalent so they wouldn't burn in fire too? That's an interesting question for a theists who accepts evolution and Jesus.

Sorry for the hijack David. I don't often get a chance to catch BluffTHIS with his pants down.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
BluffThis -
And that is given that a God did create the quantum singularity from which the Big Bang came, and which is clearly and will *ever* be unexplainable by science, that the background probability is that such a God will continue to "interfere".

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Phil -
If God did exist, it is highly improbable he would have anything to do with human affairs

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Now we have Dualing Probabilities. I wonder whose "math" is correct. Maybe somebody forgot to move a decimal or something.

PairTheBoard

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BluffThis -
And that is given that a God did create the quantum singularity from which the Big Bang came, and which is clearly and will *ever* be unexplainable by science, that the background probability is that such a God will continue to "interfere".

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Phil -
If God did exist, it is highly improbable he would have anything to do with human affairs

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Now we have Dualing Probabilities. I wonder whose "math" is correct. Maybe somebody forgot to move a decimal or something.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

How about simply stating that in His vast and magnificant creation, there is no reason to think that God takes a particular interest in what BluffThis had for breakfast this morning. Does that work for you PTB?

[Matt R.]

If you were boundless in your abilities and time was not an issue to you, wouldn't it equally stand to reason that you were interested in everything ?

Put another way, I really don't think the argument of "Well, we have a being that is the greatest being imaginable and created our entire universe, but I don't think he would really care about minute details. Therefore I have rigorously proven the probability of God caring about X is incredibly tiny" holds much water.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If you were boundless in your abilities and time was not an issue to you, wouldn't it equally stand to reason that you were interested in everything ?

Put another way, I really don't think the argument of "Well, we have a being that is the greatest being imaginable and created our entire universe, but I don't think he would really care about minute details. Therefore I have rigorously proven the probability of God caring about X is incredibly tiny" holds much water.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yep, agree with all this, except I think BT! is talking about a SPECIAL interest. To the being you are talking about, does special interest even make any sense?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, we have a being that is the greatest being imaginable and created our entire universe, but I don't think he would really care about minute details

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not the argument. You either accept that God, in his infinite creative power, created just one universe with just one sentient life form on a single planet, or accept that God created the situation I described above. And if he created the situation I described above, then the Jesus story is guffaw-worthy nonsense.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BluffThis -
And that is given that a God did create the quantum singularity from which the Big Bang came, and which is clearly and will *ever* be unexplainable by science, that the background probability is that such a God will continue to "interfere".

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Phil -
If God did exist, it is highly improbable he would have anything to do with human affairs

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Now we have Dualing Probabilities. I wonder whose "math" is correct. Maybe somebody forgot to move a decimal or something.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

How about simply stating that in His vast and magnificant creation, there is no reason to think that God takes a particular interest in what BluffThis had for breakfast this morning. Does that work for you PTB?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yea. That's a pretty straightforward statement of the opinion. Why bring in all this high falootin talk about "probabilities"?

I once had a friend who was very spriritually minded. He believed in God and prayer. I once asked him what he thought about this idea of Providence. He said he thought there were some things God just didn't give a sh-t about. I suspect the breakfast BluffThis had this morning would be one of them.

PairTheBoard

[Matt R.]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by special. If by special you mean, "God cares about me more than he cares about you." or "God cares about humans more than cats." then yes, I don't think having a "special" interest makes sense.

But if God's "interests" are boundless (since he is boundless), than I don't think this distinction is super important anyway. Aren't the others claiming that God has no interest in any part of humanity because the cosmos is so vast?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BluffThis -
And that is given that a God did create the quantum singularity from which the Big Bang came, and which is clearly and will *ever* be unexplainable by science, that the background probability is that such a God will continue to "interfere".

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Phil -
If God did exist, it is highly improbable he would have anything to do with human affairs

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Now we have Dualing Probabilities. I wonder whose "math" is correct. Maybe somebody forgot to move a decimal or something.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a different question. The original question is a very reasonable one. What is P(guy did actual magic) given that this magic can be duplicated? It comes back to historical probability, which is something that can be roughly quantified. Most rational people, theist or not, should come up with a very small number for P(guy did actual magic). David's simply trying to get some rough math to go with that number.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by special. If by special you mean, "God cares about me more than he cares about you." or "God cares about humans more than cats." then yes, I don't think having a "special" interest makes sense.

But if God's "interests" are boundless (since he is boundless), than I don't think this distinction is super important anyway. Aren't the others claiming that God has no interest in any part of humanity because the cosmos is so vast?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the 'no' interest people probably mean something more like 'no special interest,' but that could be me putting words in their mouths. But if God cares just as much about me as he does a hydrogen atom floating in Alpha Centauri, then there isn't much distinction between "doesn't care" and "doesn't especially care," is there?

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, we have a being that is the greatest being imaginable and created our entire universe, but I don't think he would really care about minute details

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not the argument. You either accept that God, in his infinite creative power, created just one universe with just one sentient life form on a single planet, or accept that God created the situation I described above. And if he created the situation I described above, then the Jesus story is guffaw-worthy nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's not your argument, then what is? I agree with your sentiment that if God exists and is the greatest being imaginable, then we are but a tiny fleck in a sea of universes. You seem to be asserting that it follows that God does not care about humans because of our insignificance. I think the opposite follows (that he cares about everything), and I think I showed why this is more likely.

How does it make the Jesus story guffaw-worthy nonsense?

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by special. If by special you mean, "God cares about me more than he cares about you." or "God cares about humans more than cats." then yes, I don't think having a "special" interest makes sense.

But if God's "interests" are boundless (since he is boundless), than I don't think this distinction is super important anyway. Aren't the others claiming that God has no interest in any part of humanity because the cosmos is so vast?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the 'no' interest people probably mean something more like 'no special interest,' but that could be me putting words in their mouths. But if God cares just as much about me as he does a hydrogen atom floating in Alpha Centauri, then there isn't much distinction between "doesn't care" and "doesn't especially care," is there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure there is. There is the whole self-awareness and afterlife thing. If God cares about a hydrogen atom, he is simply interested in knowing everything about it. But a hydrogen atom isn't self-aware, so it doesn't really matter if it ceases to exist at any point. It also doesn't give a crap if there is any meaning to its existence.

But if God cares about the parts of his creation that are self-aware (even if it's only "equal" to some mass of hydrogen atoms), then he must treat its existence differently. For instance, questions about "meaning" or an afterlife or other philosophical questions. From this angle, there's a huge difference between "not caring" and "not especially caring, yet caring equally about everything".

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by special. If by special you mean, "God cares about me more than he cares about you." or "God cares about humans more than cats." then yes, I don't think having a "special" interest makes sense.

But if God's "interests" are boundless (since he is boundless), than I don't think this distinction is super important anyway. Aren't the others claiming that God has no interest in any part of humanity because the cosmos is so vast?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the 'no' interest people probably mean something more like 'no special interest,' but that could be me putting words in their mouths. But if God cares just as much about me as he does a hydrogen atom floating in Alpha Centauri, then there isn't much distinction between "doesn't care" and "doesn't especially care," is there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure there is. There is the whole self-awareness and afterlife thing. If God cares about a hydrogen atom, he is simply interested in knowing everything about it. But a hydrogen atom isn't self-aware, so it doesn't really matter if it ceases to exist at any point. It also doesn't give a crap if there is any meaning to its existence.

But if God cares about the parts of his creation that are self-aware (even if it's only "equal" to some mass of hydrogen atoms), then he must treat its existence differently. For instance, questions about "meaning" or an afterlife or other philosophical questions. From this angle, there's a huge difference between "not caring" and "not especially caring, yet caring equally about everything".

[/ QUOTE ]
You say 'must.' I don't see why he 'must.' What is so special about being self-aware that demands God pay special attention?

[Matt R.]

Pretend you write a computer program. You care about all aspects of the computer program since it's your creation.

Part of your program becomes self-aware. The other part is still there, but not self-aware. Furthermore, you come to find out the self-aware portion of your program can experience pain and will cease to exist at some point. It is conscious and thinks about the meaning to its existence and if there is anything after he dies.

You still care about ALL of your program. Are you telling me you wouldn't treat the conscious and self-aware parts differently than the other parts?

FWIW, I agree that it's possible God doesn't care about us and just sees us as a clump of matter. "Must" was too strong a word. It just doesn't seem very probable /images/graemlins/smile.gif to me.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
The original question is a very reasonable one. What is P(guy did actual magic) given that this magic can be duplicated? It comes back to historical probability, which is something that can be roughly quantified. Most rational people, theist or not, should come up with a very small number for P(guy did actual magic). David's simply trying to get some rough math to go with that number.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that most people would be extremely doubtful of the claim. But to say it "is something that can be roughly quantified" requires close examination. What are the assumptions that would go into the mathematical model for producing such quantification? How well do those assumptions apply in more general circumstances? Do they apply equally to the Magician making the claims? What about to his closest friends who trust his word?

PairTheBoard

[Matt R.]

Eww. I don't really like my argument. There is something else I should include.

Let's see how to phrase this.

If God is God (boundless, timeless, etc.) and he cares about everything he has created, then he cares about hydrogen atoms and human beings which are comprised of a multitude of atoms equally. However, if he CARES about humans at all (as opposed to not caring about humans because the universe is so vast), he must account for the qualitative difference that a conscious being experiences. For instance, I don't think a caring being would allow something which experiences a lifetime of pain to cease to exist (as there are beings which experience very pain filled lives). Afterlife type arguments are one example and I think the easiest to illustrate. Hydrogen atoms have no first person ontology to concern God with, and since it doesn't experience pain or questions of existence then he may treat the hydrogen atoms differently (even if he cares, for instance, where they are located).

Add that to my other post, and hopefully my viewpoint will be a bit more clear. "Must" still may be too strong a word to use, but if we are using the word "care" I think it's pretty reasonable.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretend you write a computer program. You care about all aspects of the computer program since it's your creation.

Part of your program becomes self-aware. The other part is still there, but not self-aware. Furthermore, you come to find out the self-aware portion of your program can experience pain and will cease to exist at some point. It is conscious and thinks about the meaning to its existence and if there is anything after he dies.

You still care about ALL of your program. Are you telling me you wouldn't treat the conscious and self-aware parts differently than the other parts?

FWIW, I agree that it's possible God doesn't care about us and just sees us as a clump of matter. "Must" was too strong a word. It just doesn't seem very probable /images/graemlins/smile.gif to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would, but thats because I only have a finite amount of attention-span, and that part of my program is now really kick-ass. Wouldn't have that problem if I was God, of course.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Eww. I don't really like my argument. There is something else I should include.

Let's see how to phrase this.

If God is God (boundless, timeless, etc.) and he cares about everything he has created, then he cares about hydrogen atoms and human beings which are comprised of a multitude of atoms equally. However, if he CARES about humans at all (as opposed to not caring about humans because the universe is so vast), he must account for the qualitative difference that a conscious being experiences. For instance, I don't think a caring being would allow something which experiences a lifetime of pain to cease to exist (as there are beings which experience very pain filled lives). Afterlife type arguments are one example and I think the easiest to illustrate. Hydrogen atoms have no first person ontology to concern God with, and since it doesn't experience pain or questions of existence then he may treat the hydrogen atoms differently (even if he cares, for instance, where they are located).

Add that to my other post, and hopefully my viewpoint will be a bit more clear. "Must" still may be too strong a word to use, but if we are using the word "care" I think it's pretty reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are mixing up meanings of the word 'care,' here. Omnibenevolence is a whole other can of worms, and probably not something we want to get into in this thread. Should we perhaps use "has an interest in" instead?

[PairTheBoard]

I don't see what all the fuss is here. If God is infinitely interested in everything, and cares infinitely about everything, what point is there to arguing about the degree of infinitude he might care or be interested in this or that. He would care infinitely about us As Human Beings, which is what we are. What's the point in making conjectures about his Caring about us as what we are Not?

PairTheBoard

[Matt R.]

Sure. If God is only interested in us in an experimental sense, then it is certainly possible he simply views us as clusters of matter. The question is then, I guess, does God treat beings with a first-person ontology differently than beings/objects that do not experience self-awareness? I would guess he would... primarily because I think there must be something qualitatively different between a conscious being and a non-conscious clump of matter. This is just conjecture though, perhaps there is no "real" difference beyond illusion (illusion doesn't feel like the right word here, but we'll go with it).

I actually got completely diverted from the original point of this thread by Lestat's post, unfortunately /images/graemlins/frown.gif. I just wanted to interject there. Suffice it to say that I agree that it does not follow that God must treat humans differently than say, hydrogen, if he simply takes interest in everything on a completely detached basis.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see what all the fuss is here. If God is infinitely interested in everything, and cares infinitely about everything, what point is there to arguing about the degree of infinitude he might care or be interested in this or that. He would care infinitely about us As Human Beings, which is what we are. What's the point in making conjectures about his Caring about us as what we are Not?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I was trying to say before /images/graemlins/tongue.gif. I got side tracked with the afterlife thing, trying to use it as an example, but it's somewhat irrelevant.

As PTB said, if God cares about his creation, then he cares about hydrogen as a hydrogen atom, grass as grass, cows as cows, and humans as humans. Everything is different. Taking interest in something also implies you are "interested" in what it is -- you realize an atom is qualitatively different than a human. So, "caring" or "being interested" in everything (even if you are interested in each thing equally) is fundamentally different than creating a universe and not giving a damn about the little details.

(edit for clarity)

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see what all the fuss is here. If God is infinitely interested in everything, and cares infinitely about everything, what point is there to arguing about the degree of infinitude he might care or be interested in this or that. He would care infinitely about us As Human Beings, which is what we are. What's the point in making conjectures about his Caring about us as what we are Not?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it is obvious that Christians believe God holds humans in a much higher regard than any other creature. Presumably this includes a Mallard duck or a highly intelligent alien from another planet. So I think the question needs to be asked and contemplated.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see what all the fuss is here. If God is infinitely interested in everything, and cares infinitely about everything, what point is there to arguing about the degree of infinitude he might care or be interested in this or that. He would care infinitely about us As Human Beings, which is what we are. What's the point in making conjectures about his Caring about us as what we are Not?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I was trying to say before /images/graemlins/tongue.gif. I got side tracked with the afterlife thing, trying to use it as an example, but it's somewhat irrelevant.

As PTB said, if God cares about his creation, then he cares about hydrogen as a hydrogen atom, grass as grass, cows as cows, and humans as humans. Everything is different. Taking interest in something also implies you are "interested" in what it is -- you realize an atom is qualitatively different than a human. So, "caring" or "being interested" in everything is fundamentally different than creating a universe and not giving a damn about the little details, even if you care for each thing equally.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what do you think of the biblical implication that has humans at the very top of God's list? Certainly higher than other animals. Is there a heaven for water buffalo and wildebeasts?. Or if there's only one heaven, will there be cockroaches there? And this doesn't touch on any extra terrestrial life that may exist a few hundred lightyears from the planet Earth. What about them? Why is it only humans that get to go to heaven? Or am I being presumptious and the bible does in fact mention ALL living things go to heaven? Sorry, because I really don't know the answer. But I thought it was just humans.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see what all the fuss is here. If God is infinitely interested in everything, and cares infinitely about everything, what point is there to arguing about the degree of infinitude he might care or be interested in this or that. He would care infinitely about us As Human Beings, which is what we are. What's the point in making conjectures about his Caring about us as what we are Not?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it is obvious that Christians believe God holds humans in a much higher regard than any other creature. Presumably this includes a Mallard duck or a highly intelligent alien from another planet. So I think the question needs to be asked and contemplated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the Native American view of sprituality whereby they view all things as "our relations". Thus the well known saying, Aho Mitakuye Oyasin, which roughly translates, "Many blessings to all my Relations". I wouldn't want to misrepresent the Christian view about "higher regard" but I suspect they could take lessons from the Native American path.

However, that now becomes an issue more with the Tone of the Christian attitude. It's getting a little far from the original issue of whether God cares about his creation to begin with.

PairTheBoard

[Matt R.]

I'm not exactly sure what the Bible's stance is on the afterlife for other animals. It's been awhile since I've read most of the books. And it's a long collection, so even if I read it cover to cover I might miss something important.

I think the Bible only talks about heaven for humans. But, this seems reasonable because humans are the only ones reading the book /images/graemlins/tongue.gif. Even if there was a heaven for cockroaches, I don't think there'd be much use for writing about it in the Bible. Unless you think it's there for answering all these philosophical questions about existence, but I think it would start to become a bit too long at that point.

Oh, and I think most everyone has humans at the top of their "list", this includes atheists. I don't think it's surprising that a book meant to be read by humans has this property as well, even if in the grand scheme of things there is no "list".

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not exactly sure what the Bible's stance is on the afterlife for other animals. It's been awhile since I've read most of the books. And it's a long collection, so even if I read it cover to cover I might miss something important.

I think the Bible only talks about heaven for humans. But, this seems reasonable because humans are the only ones reading the book /images/graemlins/tongue.gif. Even if there was a heaven for cockroaches, I don't think there'd be much use for writing about it in the Bible. Unless you think it's there for answering all these philosophical questions about existence, but I think it would start to become a bit too long at that point.

Oh, and I think most everyone has humans at the top of their "list", this includes atheists. I don't think it's surprising that a book meant to be read by humans has this property as well, even if in the grand scheme of things there is no "list".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the bible references man's "superiority" over all other living things.

I think PTB is right and this is getting off the topic of God's interest or disinterest in His creation. I just personaly think that if there is a God, He could just as easily be disinterested in us as interested.

Well, wait... That would get me in trouble with PTB. So I'll just go back to my original statement... I have no reason to think God cares about the minutaie in our daily lives and/or perhaps in our lives at all.

[David Sklansky]

"In other words, if He cared enough to start the ball rolling, it is highly probable He cares where and how that ball rolls. To maintain otherwise is preposterous. And hence the reason the atheists you take to task here sometimes are so resistant to first cause arguments, because they know where they logically will lead."

Its far from preposterous. But regardless of that, the evidence clearly says that even if he cares where and how that ball rolls, he never interferes with the laws of physic's predictions regarding that. At least not while we are alive.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Its far from preposterous. But regardless of that, the evidence clearly says that even if he cares where and how that ball rolls, he never interferes with the laws of physic's predictions regarding that. At least not while we are alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's far from "clear".

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

I want to make a couple points on miracles, one of which I've made before. And that is that I, and most other christians, believe that God has performed and still is performing miracles. But that the vast majority of them over time are subtle coincidence type of stuff where He guides normal physical processes in a way that is consonant with the range those processes possess, as well as the experience believers have of Him in their daily lives. All of which is small unprovable by science type of "interferences".

So in order to make sure people have faith rather than be certain of his existence (or whatever other reason for his sticking to miracles that obey the laws of physics) he has to disappoint believers who are praying to him. He will sometimes miraculously cure cancer because he know sceptics can still argue it doesn't prove he exists, but he won't ever regrow limbs regardless of prayers because that would change most sceptics minds? He is more concerned with making sure his miracles have dual explanations than with rewarding his worshippers? Please.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
So in order to make sure people have faith rather than be certain of his existence (or whatever other reason for his sticking to miracles that obey the laws of physics) he has to disappoint believers who are praying to him. He will sometimes miraculously cure cancer because he know sceptics can still argue it doesn't prove he exists, but he won't ever regrow limbs regardless of prayers because that would change most sceptics minds? He is more concerned with making sure his miracles have dual explanations than with rewarding his worshippers? Please.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a strong argument. But think about it a little more. How much would you expect this Perfect God to do for us? Would we be able to just Pray-Up anything we wanted anytime we wanted it? Could I Pray-Up a milkshake for myself, laws of physics be damned? Are you absolutely sure that such a Magic-Land existence would be Better than the one we have? I doubt you could get a unanimous consensus on that. Hell, for every version of heaven I've heard proposed there has always been someone chiming in that they wouldn't like it. Are you absoulutely sure you know and can weigh all the consequences of such a Magic-Land life?

So maybe an overabundance of miracles would not be as great a thing as you think. Maybe less is more in this case. How much less? Maybe you think you know the precisely correct amount and can say it differs from what we experience. Or maybe what we experience is actually the precisely correct amount.

As far as God doing a few special spectacular miracles like growing a few legs, just to prove to us that He's there. It wouldn't prove anything. It would just be a Freak Event for which we have a shortfall in scientific explanation. In fact, it would really Foul Us Up because we would waste a lot of time trying to find yet to be discovered laws of physics to explain it when such a search would be futile. If we had to deal with very many of these Freak Events popping up all the time we might become virtually stalled in our quest to explore the Universe. Unintended consequences are a bitch.

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
How much less?

[/ QUOTE ]
0. It would be the ultimate expression of love and fairness. You made a very good case for why no prayers at all should be answered, and why God should not intervene in a universe he created with his infinite wisdom.

There are even better arguments than yours, but they're for another thread.

[David Sklansky]

"So maybe an overabundance of miracles would not be as great a thing as you think. Maybe less is more in this case. How much less? Maybe you think you know the precisely correct amount and can say it differs from what we experience. Or maybe what we experience is actually the precisely correct amount."

Even if it was the correct amount it wouldn't be the correct type. God is forced to avoid miracles that may be less deserving in order to make sure that the laws of physics are obeyed.

"As far as God doing a few special spectacular miracles like growing a few legs, just to prove to us that He's there."

I didn't say he should do those miracles to prove he was there. I said that you would think that he shouldn't avoid those miracles just to keep people from feeling they have proof.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How much less?

[/ QUOTE ]
0. It would be the ultimate expression of love and fairness.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does sound pretty good. I wouldn't mind taking at least a short vacation there.

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

As far as God doing a few special spectacular miracles like growing a few legs, just to prove to us that He's there. It wouldn't prove anything. It would just be a Freak Event for which we have a shortfall in scientific explanation. In fact, it would really Foul Us Up because we would waste a lot of time trying to find yet to be discovered laws of physics to explain it when such a search would be futile. If we had to deal with very many of these Freak Events popping up all the time we might become virtually stalled in our quest to explore the Universe. Unintended consequences are a bitch.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I think you make an excellent point here, you have to realize that many atheists think that we should be working hard to 'cure' the world of it's dependence on religion. These people think that it is very important to disprove every fantastic claim of any religion so that more people become atheists.

[Phil153]

No, you have it wrong. Atheists wish to rid the world of pathetic beliefs such as:

- The souls of the dead cause human unhappiness (Scientology)
- A Jew was nailed to a cross and bled to save us from the wrath of a spiteful God. (Xianity)
- You'll get a bunch of virgins if you kill infidels (Islam)
- Unwed sex is immoral (Christianity), as is birth control (Catholics)
- Evolution didn't happen - God made everything 6000 years ago
- God will listen to your prayers for your sick relative, your job interview, or your atheist friend, while millions of innocent kids die of starvation and needless disease.
- We are all inherently sinful and unworthy of love except through belief in religion x
- Women who have unmarried sex should be stoned to death (Islam, Christianity)
- We are all going to hell except through belief in religion x
- Armageddon is coming to give the Bad People what they deserve

That's just a few. These beliefs are weird, and many are harmful to people's spiritual growth. If these beliefs didn't exist, most atheists wouldn't give a crap about religion, just as most don't have a problem with Buddhism or similar.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As far as God doing a few special spectacular miracles like growing a few legs, just to prove to us that He's there. It wouldn't prove anything. It would just be a Freak Event for which we have a shortfall in scientific explanation. In fact, it would really Foul Us Up because we would waste a lot of time trying to find yet to be discovered laws of physics to explain it when such a search would be futile. If we had to deal with very many of these Freak Events popping up all the time we might become virtually stalled in our quest to explore the Universe. Unintended consequences are a bitch.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I think you make an excellent point here, you have to realize that many atheists think that we should be working hard to 'cure' the world of it's dependence on religion. These people think that it is very important to disprove every fantastic claim of any religion so that more people become atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

They would certainly have their hands full then if God started growing new legs for people. The problem is that science in general would have its hands full with futile attempts to discover unknown laws to explain these Freak Events. Science would not stop doing its job. It would just have no way of knowing that it had no chance to succeed.

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you have it wrong. Atheists wish to rid the world of pathetic beliefs such as:

- The souls of the dead cause human unhappiness (Scientology)
- A Jew was nailed to a cross and bled to save us from the wrath of a spiteful God. (Xianity)
- You'll get a bunch of virgins if you kill infidels (Islam)
- Unwed sex is immoral (Christianity), as is birth control (Catholics)
- Evolution didn't happen - God made everything 6000 years ago
- God will listen to your prayers for your sick relative, your job interview, or your atheist friend, while millions of innocent kids die of starvation and needless disease.
- We are all inherently sinful and unworthy of love except through belief in religion x
- Women who have unmarried sex should be stoned to death (Islam, Christianity)
- We are all going to hell except through belief in religion x
- Armageddon is coming to give the Bad People what they deserve

That's just a few. These beliefs are weird, and many are harmful to people's spiritual growth. If these beliefs didn't exist, most atheists wouldn't give a crap about religion, just as most don't have a problem with Buddhism or similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I misspoke when I said so more people become 'atheists'. I should have phrased it differently. So more people open their eyes a little bit?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
He is more concerned with making sure his miracles have dual explanations than with rewarding his worshippers? Please.

[/ QUOTE ]


He is indeed most concerned about "rewarding" his worshippers. With an *eternal* reward. Eternal always trumps "now".

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He is more concerned with making sure his miracles have dual explanations than with rewarding his worshippers? Please.

[/ QUOTE ]


He is indeed most concerned about "rewarding" his worshippers. With an *eternal* reward. Eternal always trumps "now".

[/ QUOTE ]

I once proposed the possibility of "Deism plus afterlife". Considering the mystery of human consciousness and the Big Bang it seemed like a belief as reasonable as any religion. But no one here took it seriously.

[Piers]

While I would agree that the Big Bang is a big mystery, I don’t agree that human consciousness is.

In fact I expect that within a hundred years we will have pin pointed the exact biological processes that lead to the sensation of consciousness in humans. It will be difficult to swallow but it will be there.

[AaronBrown]

Here is one approach that I like, although I don't expect it to convince everyone.

I think you have to start by putting some kind of probability on miracles. Clearly we don't have much information, but we can call upon the Personal Insignificance Principle (PIP). It says that there's nothing special about me, so no reason for me to be born at any particular time in an interval. If the laws of physics were going to stay constant for X billion years, and I live 100 years (why not?), then the chance of me being alive when the laws of physics change is 100/(X billion).

The next step is not rigorous, but I think it makes common sense. The logic above suggests that if something had been going on for X years when I was born, and I knew nothing other than that, my median estimate for how long it should continue to go on is X years. For example, when I was born in 1956, the American President, the British monarch and the men's half of the Wimbledon mixed-doubles champions had each held their respective positions for four years. It was extremely unlikely that Eisenhower would have been in office four years later, it was very likely Queen Elizabeth would still be Queen and it was plausible but improbable that Vic Seixas would still be winning. So if you know something about the intervals, you can make a better estimate. But since we know nothing about the probability of the laws of physics changing, if we think they've been constant for 15 billion years, the chance of that changing next year should be about 1 in 15 billion.

Given this principle, we can start to do some math. About 1 person in 1,000 is so crazy they have no concept of reality, and no ability to judge whether or not they are crazy. So we don't have to worry about probabilities less than that, we can't be sure. I'm willing to subsume everything into that 1 in 1,000: the chance that I'm just dreaming everything, or that the universe is an experiment run by the white mice or that I'm an AI program in someone's PC. There's (a) the world is pretty much what it seems, 0.999 and (b) everything else 0.001. Part of (a) is no miracles and no one I meet has special information from God.

In order to be worth my attention to reconsider (a), someone has to show me something that violates some principle that I think has been in force for at least 100,000 years (100 years of life times 1 in 1,000 chance of being crazy). This assumes the miracle has no obvious casual relation to knowing God, it's just something I can't explain.

I believe that gravity has been around for a lot more than 100,000 years. It's true that the universe could have been created one second ago with all past evidence in place, or there could be some more complex physics in which gravity is a recent innovation but other laws explain why gravity appears to have existed in the past; but remember, I'm reasoning based on the assumption things are pretty much they seem.

So, for me, a miracle has to appear to violate something for which there is strong evidence in astronomy or the fossil record. I'm aware of two things: professional stage magicians do things that seem impossible, and scientific consensus has often been mistaken in the past. So I would have to investigate the claim very carefully, then reassess the evidence it appears to contradict.

I think this is possible. If someone removed his head, handed it to me while it kept on talking and his body walked out of the room; that's a miracle. Translating the book into Chinese probably isn't.

Seeing a miracle would cause me to question my working hypothesis that the world is pretty much what it seems. If someone seemed to have special knowledge or abilities concerning the miracles, I would pay attention to what they said. That doesn't mean surrender my judgment to them, it just means pay attention. If someone else duplicated their feats, I would stop paying attention.