Announcement

**Duelist925** · 01-21-2012, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Gravekeeper View Post

On the contrary, HYHYT has been arguing on the basis of reason and logic. That has, in fact, been the entire sticking point of our argument. Also, seeing as neither HYHYBT nor Andara has seemingly been able to understand what I've been talking about, I would say they're underestimating. Seeing as I've largely been working from Hawkin's books.

Gk, fact of the matter is, I understand your logic. I get where your coming from. I understand your viewpoint. But you keep seeming to ignore and trivialize other peoples viewpoints, despite them having their own logic that makes sense as well.

Personally, I like a clockwork universe theory. It appeals to me, and makes a lot of sense, though I prefer a Story teller type interpretation myself.

But there has never been a clock made or a story written that didn't need adjusting from time to time. So I still fail to understand how a god that interferes is, under your logic, necessarily flawed.

And what exactly? The very thing that started this entire argument was me saying that quantum mechanics, aka the thing the LHC was built to investigate, was the last true realm of possibility for finding any evidence for the existence of non-physical intelligence such as a deity. >.>

My point wasnt about quantum physics--it was about our own understanding of the universe. Your point has been repeatedly, that we know so much about the universe, and its underpinings that we could detect any interference from its ripple effect. But if the higgs bosun isnt real, then it throws a huge damn wrench into our understanding of the universe, and could very well mean we've been looking at things incorrectly for decades.

Congradulations, that is a "Mysterious Ways" argument and one of the big problems thats been running in this entire thread. You cannot answer "Explain why this is possible despite all evidence to the contrary" with "Because God". The construct of God is entirely a human invention as are the powers and abilities attributed to him. Basically, I have said "People can't fly" and you have said "Sure they can, look at Superman".

Point of fact: I am not using a Mysterious Ways arguement. I am stating we dont understand gods logic because we lack the knowledge it has. If we had its knowledge, we'd understand its logic. A blind man can't see the hole he's about to fall into. If someone helps him, and yet never explains why, he has no idea why the stranger led him around in a big circle around the pit. He doesnt understand the logic of the strangers actions--yet those actions have a logic. THe only reason the blind man doesnt understand is because he lacks the strangers knowledge.

We are perfectly capable of understanding a devine beings logic, if we have the knowledge it does.

That aside, you're missing my point as well. In a universe that is intimately based on interdependent states, you cannot change one without affecting the others. It is impossible and stating "God can do it cus he's God" does not negate this fact and again has utterly no basis in reason, logic or science.

What is impossible today is commonplace tomorrow. We barely know how many of those forces work yet alone if its possible to bend or alter one in a localized area without effecting other areas. Bloody hell, there is actually some proof that we may have had the freaking speed of light wrong, that there may be particles able to move faster than it! Something long considered "impossible". So I don't buy that anything is impossible until its been actively tried. I know that we couldn't alter any of the fundamental forces, but why in the nine hells couldn't a race with better tech, or something that operates on another level entirely?

Just because we don't know how to do something, doesn't mean it's impossible.

That was not the point of that example, the point of that example was to demonstrate how much of a shitstorm direct intervention would cause in a universe of interdependent states. Also, your counterpoint is completely flawed because obviously everyone directly affected would want to know what happened. An investigation into what happened would occur. It'd go all over the local news ( "Mysterious Light Change Kills 6, Injures 5" ). If no real reason was found, it would turn into an uproar. People would be blamed and sued and it would generally be a huge mess. -.-

You assume way too much with that. Why the hell would everyone effected want to know exactly what happened? You assume they wouldn't just take the first line of bull fed to them. "Computer error" "Rogue Hackers" "Viewer Error" Any of those could be trotted out and people would buy it. Local news? As fucking if. There are accidents every day that don't make the news. And even if it did, it wouldn't necessary be blamed on the light. In a perfect world, yeah, the light would be fingered by all the witness's--but this is far from a perfect world. The cops would get a dozen different descriptions of the events, from people who'd been there and people who just wandered off the street, ranging from "its the insert minority here fault" to "It was the other guy! He was totally drunk! " to "The light changed!" And the cops would be none the wiser as per which it was.

And again, even if the light being changed was what people accepted as the cause, people would assume "Hackers" or "computer error" long before they ever assumed "Godly intervention"

And your defintion of "huge mess" is fairly small, since shit like that happenes multiple times every day just in the us--one country--for a variety of reasons.

First of all, the type of intervention often attributed to God is of a sort that would show up on the radar of current science.

Again, assuming that any being touted as "all powerful" wouldn't be able to interfere in such a way. You make assumptions about a devine beings abilities, when we have no real idea beyond what a really old book tells us--hardly scientific evidence of whats possible.

Just because we don't know how something can be done, does not mean it can't be done.

Finally, let me turn that right around on you: Why is God even a viable possibility? This is the entire problem with this dicussion. The very act of inserting God as a possibility is itself an act of faith. Which is why trying to argue that it is reasonable or logical is fundementally flawed. The idea of God is a human construct. There is no evidence, no indication, no mechanism, nothing that suggests his existence. Inserting him as a possibility is illogical and claiming otherwise is fallacy.

AHHHG WHY? Why is god a fallacy? In a universe as fucking weird as this, as weird as you yourself have pointed out, why is the idea any more strange than half the shit that physicists show the new guy to freak him out? Freaking cracked just ran an article about 5 things that make scientists through their hands in the air. We dont even understand how GRAVITY works. We have theories, but none have been, or, at our current level, can be proven. Why is the idea of "god" so strange against ALL THAT?

No where, you mistake probability for intervention. Statistically speaking if enough people fall downstairs eventually probability stats one of them will have undiagnosed cancer. Probability operating as it should is not intervention.

No where, this scenario would eventually happen through simple probability. The universe has at least 100 billion galaxies of several hundred billion stars each, each one with 1.6 planets per star existing on a time scale far beyond our tiny little lifespans. This scenario is inevitable through simple probability.

Very nice, stating those as fact without knowing all the details.

I love how you missed the point of those examples entirely. You don't see gods interference in either because its not spelled out--you have no reason to look for god, so you don't find it. Which was the entire freaking point. If humans can explain something with natural explanations, we will, unless some booming voice tells us otherwise.

Also, its much more common for gases to be converted into ice during the formation of a star and then naturally hit forming planetary bodies in the same solar system. Due to the magic of gravity and gravitational accretion ( Gravity = God -.- ).

Irrelevant to the argument, but an interesting fact. Thanks.

You're missing the laundry list too. There is no need for God to interfere at all in any of these scenarios as they already naturally occur based on the laws of the universe that are already established. Your scenarios are only viable examples if you can demonstrate that they are occurring at a rate far in exceedence of what the universe would dicate. In other words, if EVERY person with cancer went to the hospital with something minor and had their life saved when the cancer was discovered. If EVERY solar system had a planet containing life. You must demonstrate something that has occurred outside of what natural law dictates, otherwise intervention is pointless and only creates scientific and philosophical problems for the universe due to it being built upon a system of intimately interdepedent states.

Ok, WHY? Why must gods interference automatically be outside of natural law? Why in the nine hells couldnt a godlike entity use natural law to accomplish its goals? Wouldnt it make more sense for such a being to USE the laws of the place its within to accomplish its goals, rather than BREAKING them, which, as you've said, would cause a lot of other side effects? (and probably uses more energy)

Hence my original statement that the natural laws of the universe take care of everything just fine by themselves and do not require intervention still stands. None of you have demonstrated any reason why intervention would occur, nor any evidence intervention has occurred nor any answer to the list of problems intervention would case. As such, you argue from faith and your argument has no basis whatsoever in the realm of reason.

Ok, here are a few reasons god might interfere, if it so chose to:

To prevent a game breaker. We, as humans, are capable of utterly destroying our species right now--god might intefere to keep this from happening.

To balance an opposition: If we posit that there is a god, its not much more of a stretch that there might be another being like it, of similar or lesser power. god might interfere to balance another such beings interference.

Shits and freaking giggles. Boredom. Hell, a desire to see its creations, if we are its creations, improve itself. to give its creations a kick in the butt to move on and start improving themselves.

As for detecting any interventions, or any problems they might cause, You simply refuse to believe that there is any possibility that we might not be able to detect such a beings interference. Which there IS. I'm not saying we CAN"T detect such things, I'm saying that we might not be able to--or we might not recognize it as devine interference if we DID. We'd attribue it to freaking climate change, or seismic instability before we ever said "maybe it was god". >.< WHY dont you get that? That even if we detected interference, we wouldn't see it as interference, rather than just some other new phenomenon.

So please stop trying to put it there already. You have your faith and thats fine, but don't bring it into the realm of reason and try to argue with it. I don't give a rats ass what you believe in your personal life, that's your right. But don't bring it into a debate and claim its reasonable. Its not.

There's a reason its called "Faith" afterall.

My arguments have nothing to do with faith or my personal beliefs. My arguments are just as freaking reasonable as yours--and you have yet to refute them. You keep claiming we'd detect interference without stating how, or even entertaining the notion that we might not recognize interference as such, which is my main bloody point.

**Gravekeeper** · 01-22-2012, 06:17 AM