Hopefully you can laugh at this dmaddox
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Show me the quantum mechanical law that supposedly has no cause and I will show you the cause. [/quote]
Look up “hidden variable theory” and see that it has failed in every test administered. QM is not written in stone and I don’t purport to know that an uncaused event is possible; however, neither can anyone purport to know the converse.
The simple fact is this: Give me any proof of God’s existence, and I’ll show it to be unresolved by attaching the clause “this is an assumption” to each of its premises.
Edit: “That which is not fully understood is not causeless.” Exactly right, but the theory is not that no cause has been found–it’s that no cause exists. I urge you again to look into HVT and the debate surrounding it.[/quote]
I have looked at this before. The problem establishing as an event as uncaused is impossible. The reason why is that by the very fact that an event has occurred in a particular condition already begets that it is caused. It depends on the condition in which it occured so that condition. So if a mysterious event occurs under a certain condition, that condition is one of it’s dependencies.
The problem you describe may be a scientific issue, in that under certain conditions something may occur for seemingly unknown reasons, but in the philosophical world, the condition itself is a causal factors.
To disprove causation you have to have a random event, uncaused event that could be anything dependent on ne reason or condition whatsoever.[/quote]
The prevailing interpretation of QM says that uncaused events exist–that quantum phenomena are random in the strictest sense of the term. That is, they happen without cause. Note here that I’m not saying that no cause has been discovered–I’m saying that no cause can exist for these phenomena. They must be random.
This is not “scientific” or “philosophical,” for no such distinction actually exists. It is not exactly clear to me what you’re averring here, but know that to claim that uncaused events do not or cannot happen is to deny QT as it’s understood today, and to argue against literally every single experiment done on the matter, each of which has confirmed the theory without exception or qualification. If you disagree, then you assert some hidden variable for these phenomena. If on that point you can prove yourself correct, you’ll have done what Einstein couldn’t do. So, stop reading this, write up your proof, and go directly to a major university, because you’ve got a Nobel Prize in Physics, and probably a few million dollars, in your future.
(Let’s also not forget that you believe in an uncaused cause. There is no reason, and I mean no reason, that your uncaused God is any more or less logically possible than Hawkings’ uncaused Universe.)
But since you brought up the philosophy of causality, let’s take a short walk in that direction. You seem to think that the supremacy of causality is a self-evident a priori truth. This could not be further from reality. Any notion that we have of causality is utterly a posteriori. As Hume made plain (to the enduring silence of his critics), causality is inference by definition. We experience the temporal contiguity of A and B; we experience the temporal priority of A and the temporal posteriority of B; and then we infer a necessary causal link between the two. This is a posteriori reasoning in pure form.
They are absolutely assumptions. I’ll show you. You provide for me your choice theistic proof of God. From causality, from contingency, from necessity–whichever you’d like. I’ll show its premises to be assumptions.
On a side note, the quoted portion above is not really how arguments are assessed by logicians. Arguments aren’t normally said to be “true” or “false.” They’re instead valid or invalid, and sound or unsound. My view of the best proofs of God–and I’m familiar with every one that’s ever been put in print–is that they are very much valid and seemingly sound. Man cannot go further than this–not now, not ever.
You seem to think they are indisputably sound. This belief is in error, and I await the reproduction of your favorite proof in order to try and prove how and why.
Also, Pat, note that I call myself an agnostic theist for the express reason that I find certain proofs of Gods existence to be compelling. I’m not saying that they are not such–I believe them to be. I’m saying that to go any further than “compelling” is to overstate the case.
I’d love to hear JB’s comments on some of the stuff here. But if he wishes not to respond I can certainly understand that too.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
pat wrote:
smh_23 wrote:
pat wrote:
Show me the quantum mechanical law that supposedly has no cause and I will show you the cause.
Look up “hidden variable theory” and see that it has failed in every test administered. QM is not written in stone and I don’t purport to know that an uncaused event is possible; however, neither can anyone purport to know the converse.
The simple fact is this: Give me any proof of God’s existence, and I’ll show it to be unresolved by attaching the clause “this is an assumption” to each of its premises.
Edit: “That which is not fully understood is not causeless.” Exactly right, but the theory is not that no cause has been found–it’s that no cause exists. I urge you again to look into HVT and the debate surrounding it.
I have looked at this before. The problem establishing as an event as uncaused is impossible. The reason why is that by the very fact that an event has occurred in a particular condition already begets that it is caused. It depends on the condition in which it occured so that condition. So if a mysterious event occurs under a certain condition, that condition is one of it’s dependencies.
The problem you describe may be a scientific issue, in that under certain conditions something may occur for seemingly unknown reasons, but in the philosophical world, the condition itself is a causal factors.
To disprove causation you have to have a random event, uncaused event that could be anything dependent on no reason or condition whatsoever.
The prevailing interpretation of QM says that uncaused events exist–that quantum phenomena are random in the strictest sense of the term. That is, they happen without cause. Note here that I’m not saying that no cause has been discovered–I’m saying that no cause can exist for these phenomena. They must be random.
[/quote]
That’s not technically correct. And it’s for DAMN sure not the prevailing interpretation. These random phenomena can only occur under certain conditions, that alone begets a cause. They are not random because they are ruled by condition and therefore cause. Particles, for instance, popping in and out of existence is not a random event. This phenomena is dominated by rules and condition which themselves are causal. They may be apparently random, but not truly random. If you feel I am not understanding provide an example or what you are talking about and we can discuss it and illustrate it’s causal reliance it’s dependence on charge, space, motion. All necessary entities.
If something were truly random, then it would not be limited to QM, because being limited by that alone necessitates a cause. The laws of QM, in deed the HVT theory itself would be dependence on which these ‘random’ events occur.
None of this would win me shit because I am not treading on unbroken ground here. It’s already been addressed by other scholarly types. What I mean that there is a difference between philosophical and scientific understandings is basically a disagreement on the definition of certain things. In science, a null or vacuum is nothing, in philosophy a null or vacuum is a something in itself, not a nothing and it’s a something that allows certain events to take place. Indeed in a vacuum, there is still no empty space, there is always something there and the space is something and it’s occupying time and space which makes it a something not nothing. There are no uncaused events in QM. QM itself is a driving factor, a cause. And the limited nature of what occurs means it’s guided by rules and laws, perhaps not well understood, but nevertheless, caused, dependent events.
If you would like, bring up a more QM supposedly ‘random’ event and we can discuss it.
Al Hawking did was kick the can further down the road. He speaks of dark energy and singularities as the source for the existence of the universe. He fails to explain what, how or why if he is correct, that would mean the universe is uncaused since he proceeds on describing a cause that also requires a cause. What brought the dark energy into being? It cannot just be there because it is, that is circular reasoning and therefore false. It’s the same problem all these scientific postulations run into, circular reasoning.
And yes, I believe in the an Uncaused-cause because that must exist to solve the problem. No caused events can be the ultimate source.
The Uncaused-cause, by definition cannot be caused so you cannot ask what caused it. It’s nature is self evident by definition.
You speak of empirical causation, which is a type, the stuff of science, empiricism, but not the only type. Keep in mind if you dispel causal reality you completely destroy science. Because if causality does not exist, then science cannot tell us anything, because it’s entire basis for existence depends on causal relationships being true.
Hume was right in his observation of empirical causation, you cannot deductively prove it. You can only imply empirical causal relationships. This is the stuff of science. Deductive reasoning relies on the metaphysical absolutes. Not the observation of successive physical events. But truths and their dependencies.
And Hume’s critics were far from silent. His ‘third element’ of causation theory was much maligned.
Fine. So show how ‘That which exists, cannot not exist’ is an assumption. That’s premise one to the argument.
Show how ‘that which exists is contingent on something for it’s existence.’ <-To disprove this you not only have to demonstrate that something existing is not contingent, but you have to prove that it’s even possible. You can try to invoke QM in this if you wish, but be specific so that I can dispel the myth. Show me a completely random uncaused event and I will show you how it is contingent.
This is only true in empiricism. Valid, or invalid, sound or unsound are derived from that which is observed, not reasoned.
You don’t say 2+2=4 is sound, you say it’s true. You say 2+2=5 is false. That is deductive reasoning. The Law of the conservation of energy is ‘sound’ based on observation and measure.
No, I don’t think they are indisputably sound, I know they are an absolute truth and cannot be proven false.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What is the definition of miracle?
Here’s Webster’s:
An unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God.
Is a miracle proof of your god, or something that cannot be explained at this point in time that is attributed to your god?
Is it more likely that a miracle today can be proven to be natural phenomena tomorrow, or that a miracle today can be proved to be an act of god tomorrow?[/quote]
Well that’s a crappy definition, but ok. I wouldn’t define every miracle as something ‘wonderful’.Certainly the ancient Egyptians would beg to differ.
Miracles don’t prove God existence any more than anything else.
If a miracle can be proven by a factor of a natural phenomena then it is not a miracle. You don’t need a miracle to prove God exists. Logic does just fine for that.
When it comes to religion, a miracle can serve to affirm that, person(s) faith, i.e. relationship with the Almighty.
But you clearly don’t believe miracles happen, but if you are interested you can find them and see them for yourself. Takes a little research and a plane ticket for the more famous ones.
As stated before, I will not get into specific ones. There’s nothing more pointless then arguing “Yes it is”, “No it isn’t” when one can go and see for one’s self.
If you want the physical evidence, you just need to do a little digging and go see for yourself. It’s up to you how important it is to do so.
However, in light of the fact that there are real bonafide, divine events you can see for yourself, you cannot claim miracles don’t happen and they aren’t real. See one for yourself and then decide.
If you don’t care, then you don’t care. But not caring isn’t the same thing as ‘not real’.
For instance, there may be aliens but I could give the slightest shit if they were or weren’t and I won’t bother trying to find out because I truly don’t care. I am not going to say it’s not real or not possible. Though the vastness of space makes interaction really unlikely. [/quote]
You say I don’t believe in miracles. Not necessarily true. The existence of life itself and everything around us is a miracle, or something like that depending on ones definition. Is it the divine intervention of a Christian God? Maybe something else? Nobody KNOWS. Nobody.
“Miracles don’t prove God existence any more than anything else.
If a miracle can be proven by a factor of a natural phenomena then it is not a miracle.”
I propose that it is more likely that a miracle today is more likely to be proven to be a natural phenomena in the future (not a miracle) than to be proven divine intervention (a miracle.)
“If you want the physical evidence, you just need to do a little digging and go see for yourself.”
Humans have spent centuries searching for proof of god and the reason and facts of our existence, yet you say with “just a little digging” one can find physical evidence (proof??) of divine intervention?
"there may be aliens but I could give the slightest shit if they were or weren’t and I won’t bother trying to find out because I truly don’t care. I am not going to say it’s not real or not possible. Though the vastness of space makes interaction really unlikely. "
You may not care of aliens exist, but I DO care if a creator exists. I think the chances that a creator exists are just as likely as the chances that one does not. However, I think the chances that if that creator exists, he exists exactly the way the Bible says he does, is extremely unlikely. No issue with anyone believing that though. I only take issue when someone says if you don’t believe that extremely unlikely scenario you will burn in hell for eternity. That, IMO, is asinine.
[quote]pat wrote:
That’s not technically correct. And it’s for DAMN sure not the prevailing interpretation.
[/quote]
I’ll respond to the rest later this morning. For now: It is both correct and the prevailing interpretation. You may look into it if you like. If you do that, and end up thinking otherwise, then show me how and why and explain to me what is the prevailing interpretation.
[quote]pat wrote:
You speak of empirical causation, which is a type, the stuff of science, empiricism, but not the only type. Keep in mind if you dispel causal reality you completely destroy science.
[/quote]
Another small note: You are thinking in absolutes where none can exist, and it is frustrating your ability to discuss these things. Hume never dreamed of “dispelling” causality. What he did do was show that causal relations are inferred and imperceptible and thus assumptive–in all cases and always. This refers not to a “type” of causality but to its very essence, and it destroys neither science nor religion nor anything else. It is a simple feature of life on Earth, experienced through the absorptions and emanations of a mammalian brain. That something relies on an assumption is altogether unremarkable. Nearly everything, if not plainly everything, that we believe is built upon a foundation of assumption.
[quote]pat wrote:
Fine. […] Show how 'that which exists is contingent on something for it’s existence’ [is an assumption.] To disprove this you not only have to demonstrate that something existing is not contingent, but you have to prove that it’s even possible. You can try to invoke QM in this if you wish, but be specific so that I can dispel the myth. Show me a completely random uncaused event and I will show you how it is contingent.
[/quote]
I’m not disproving it–I never was. I’m showing that it’s an assumption. An assumption is something that can’t be proved–a maxim taken as a given.
So, you’ve averred the emboldened claim, and you hold it to be something other than assumptive. Prove it. If it isn’t an assumption, it will by definition be something that you can prove to me. And if it’s an a priori truth as you’ve previously claimed, its converse will imply a logical contradiction. So, take me to this logical contradiction.
Edit: And in exposing the contradiction, it is imperative that that argument not entail any assumption itself, otherwise the process will begin anew.
So there is proof God exists. It can be proven. The evidence is there. If that’s true why are only a few posters here privy to that? Are you somehow smarter than everyone else? Why haven’t you brought this proof to the Pope or something? Why hasn’t the fact that God has been proven to exist made headline news? You would think FOX would have been reporting it.
The truth is that God has not been proven to exist nor can he be proven to exist. Even if one were around to have witnessed Christ and all of the miracles he performed he would still be basing his belief that Christ was the Savior on faith. To even attempt to reduce God to an equation, to try and scientifically prove His existence is the opposite of faith and could even be blasphemous. If one requires absolute proof then one does not have faith. You may see hints that you perceive as proof but you really have nothing substantial. Take away any religious teachings you may have had and then see if you would still believe. I mean, if the evidence is there then you should be able to see it without any conditioning or prompting. But we know that’s not the case otherwise we wouldn’t have needed missionaries to spread the word. I don’t need a weatherman to tell me it’s raining so why do I need a monk, Sunday School teacher, "prophet, priest, parent or book to tell me that God exists?
For centuries smarter people than anyone who posts here have tried to prove the existence of God and they all failed. We know they failed because we wouldn’t be talking about it if they had not failed. But who knows, maybe wikileaks will post this evidence that only a few posters here know about.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
So there is proof God exists. It can be proven. The evidence is there. If that’s true why are only a few posters here privy to that? Are you somehow smarter than everyone else? Why haven’t you brought this proof to the Pope or something? Why hasn’t the fact that God has been proven to exist made headline news? You would think FOX would have been reporting it.
The truth is that God has not been proven to exist nor can he be proven to exist. Even if one were around to have witnessed Christ and all of the miracles he performed he would still be basing his belief that Christ was the Savior on faith. To even attempt to reduce God to an equation, to try and scientifically prove His existence is the opposite of faith and could even be blasphemous. If one requires absolute proof then one does not have faith. You may see hints that you perceive as proof but you really have nothing substantial. Take away any religious teachings you may have had and then see if you would still believe. I mean, if the evidence is there then you should be able to see it without any conditioning or prompting. But we know that’s not the case otherwise we wouldn’t have needed missionaries to spread the word. I don’t need a weatherman to tell me it’s raining so why do I need a monk, Sunday School teacher, "prophet, priest, parent or book to tell me that God exists?
For centuries smarter people than anyone who posts here have tried to prove the existence of God and they all failed. We know they failed because we wouldn’t be talking about it if they had not failed. But who knows, maybe wikileaks will post this evidence that only a few posters here know about. [/quote]
Jesus Christ… It isn’t like I didn’t just go over this rubbish a page ago.
Oh wait, I did.
Good Lord, it is like the record is on skip. Bunch of closed minded people bitching that other people are closed minded.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Agreed math is a discovery and not some random belief or man made invention.
[/quote]
Everything we know is ‘discovered’ we create nothing. Nobody has ever had an original thought even. We didn’t invent the car, we discovered it could be done. We didn’t invent the wheel, we discovered that something round, rolls. We didn’t invent fire, we discovered fire. We didn’t invent science, we discovered it.
That all exists beyond our knowledge of it as does much, much more we have yet to discover.[/quote]
Pre-humanist thinking. It’s also one of the tricks that the early Church used to create believers (followers). If it’s written down it must be true since we can’t create anything. [/quote]
No, it’s plain fact. Give me an original thought or create something original with no precedent. I won’t hold my breath. We can reorganize things, but those ‘things’ already exist. [/quote]
And that’s the trick. Anything I write you will simply dismiss as not really being original. You’ll claim that it already existed and whoever was the first to come up with it was not a creator but a discoverer. But I’ll play. Poetry. Man invented poetry. Now tell us all how man discovered it rather than created it. Was he digging for gold one day and pulled out a metaphor? [/quote]
It’s silly to see it as a trick. It simply a fact. Poetry? The reorganization of words, meanings and sounds to elicit a particular response or emotion? No that’s not original. It’s reorganizing things we are already aware of to make us aware of something we may previously not been aware of. We discovered that is we can organizes sounds with attached meanings in a particular way, we can convey meanings that the words and sounds themselves we previously couldn’t articulate. But, yes the sounds, meanings and understanding exist, we just discover them. The arts are just another way to understand the world around us.
It’s not a trick, it just a simple fact.[/quote]
So the poet’s choices are not his creation but rather he just happens to discover them? When Shakespeare has Juliet ask, “what’s in a name,” he was simply rearranging some words?
The arts are not a way to understand the world around us (that’s science) but the world within us. When a poet writes about a tree it isn’t about the tree.
[/quote]
No. Understanding does not come only from academics, artists reflect their feelings and thoughts through various mediums. Relating to them and understanding them is a way of understanding ‘our world’. Does not ‘our world’ consist of thoughts, emotions and other less tangible, measurable things?
Science it limited in what it can do. It’s a pretty narrow band of information.
[quote]
I suppose you’ll also claim that a Coltrane solo is not original since he was using musical notes and scales that already existed, an instrument that he did not invent and an art form that he did not originate. [/quote]
I don’t have to claim it, just prove it wrong. It’s called epistemology. The more one know about what we know, what we can know and how we get knowledge, the wiser one will be.
Where does art come from, magic?[/quote]
But you can’t prove it wrong. A Coltrane solo does not exist until he creates it. You say he discovers it but something that does not exist cannot be discovered. And it can’t already exist because it is unique to Coltrane’s experiences leading up to the moment he created it. It is a manifestation of his existence and feelings at the very moment he created it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Beans dun did gud.[/quote]
I agree. If Beans is not Religious then, he is actually searching, and this I will give kudos to any day of the week.
I would have more respect for people if they actually say, “I went searching for God for 20 years and never found him.” Then say, “You guys are stupid for believing a book, that I have never read.”
This is why I respect Beans 100% and consider him a friend.
[/quote]
Yep.[/quote]
Ahhh, thanks guys.
I wouldn’t call it searching, but I wouldn’t argue that I’m not.
I’m a reformed Angry Atheist. Much like many of the kids in this thread, I had my mind closed and made up as to how the world really worked. The older I got, and the more I read and learned, the more I came to the conclusion that I was wrong, at least in my judgment of religious people.
Like your typically lefty, I always grouped and judged people based on age, sex, skin color, religion, etc. Once I started seeing people as individuals, I started to realize how awful I was when I ate up the lefty mindset. I always assumed what people thought and did based of the demographic boxes the left pushes on people. Turns out, I was flat wrong.
Now, I’m still not religious, and certainly have a lot of things I could say that “bash” certain aspects of all religions, but what is the point? It doesn’t actually matter, to me, what someone else believes or has faith in, as long as it doesn’t hurt me. And in 99.9999% of the time, someone else’s faith will have no effect on my life, let alone harm it.
As for the spiritual side… I just don’t think the idea that we are just a random collection of cells floating around in another random collection of cells, all for no purpose, randomly, is any better of an explanation than an omnipotent being. So I entertain both ideas as possible, because they both seem equally likely, at least to me.
One thing I know in my heart though, because I feel it, is that if there is a God, it and I are on pretty good terms. This may change, I may feel differently later in life, I may be wrong, and I might be totally batshit… But, end of the day, I can look myself in the eye and fall asleep at night, I enjoy life and celebrate the good people in it. And that, ultimately is what matters.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Good Lord, it is like the record is on skip. Bunch of closed minded people bitching that other people are closed minded.
[/quote]
Here’s the problem: I do believe. I just disagree with those who say there is proof for something, faith, that should not require proof. There may be signs which we perceive as evidence but by definition we cannot say they are definitive proof and have to admit that we base our conclusion (that God exists) on…faith. God cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny; He shouldn’t and doesn’t have to.
So if people were a little more honest here with us and with themselves they would simply say that they interpret certain signs to be evidence of God’s existence and leave it at that. Those who truly believe can accept the presence of doubt. Those who don’t need absolute proof.
I believe but admit I could be wrong. If I believe I cannot be wrong then am I saying I am God? If someone believes and also believes they are infallible then they are no better than any other fundamentalist or extremist who thinks they speak for God. That to me sounds close minded. The Catholic Church no longer takes that position and accepts that it cannot know everything about God. It accepts that it may have been wrong in the past.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
God cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny; He shouldn’t and doesn’t have to.
[/quote]
I’ve explained this like 3 times now, and the theists think I have done a good job of doing so.
God is science, science is god. Even if there is no omnipotent being, that still holds true.
If there is God, then all of life is evidence of God, wind, sand, water, fire, trees, farts, cars, wireless broadband, iPhones, movies, oil, speech, thought. If there is no god, then the explanation of those things, the understanding of those things, the method of construction of those things, the learning of the parts that make up the whole becomes god, because the purpose and method of everything’s existence is the entire god concept in a nutshell.
Even if there is no omnipotent being, there is still a structure to the whole thing. There is still a method. That structure, that method is the god concept with or without an omnipotent being pulling the proverbial strings.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
God cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny; He shouldn’t and doesn’t have to.
[/quote]
More accurate to say “Scientific scrutiny can not stand up to God.” Since it’s one of those non falsifiable questions, no? Like an inherent right to life, liberty, your pursuit of happiness. Like rape is a terrible evil. Or, slavery of other races is evil. Right to bear arms. Etc.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What is the definition of miracle?
Here’s Webster’s:
An unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God.
Is a miracle proof of your god, or something that cannot be explained at this point in time that is attributed to your god?
Is it more likely that a miracle today can be proven to be natural phenomena tomorrow, or that a miracle today can be proved to be an act of god tomorrow?[/quote]
Well that’s a crappy definition, but ok. I wouldn’t define every miracle as something ‘wonderful’.Certainly the ancient Egyptians would beg to differ.
Miracles don’t prove God existence any more than anything else.
If a miracle can be proven by a factor of a natural phenomena then it is not a miracle. You don’t need a miracle to prove God exists. Logic does just fine for that.
When it comes to religion, a miracle can serve to affirm that, person(s) faith, i.e. relationship with the Almighty.
But you clearly don’t believe miracles happen, but if you are interested you can find them and see them for yourself. Takes a little research and a plane ticket for the more famous ones.
As stated before, I will not get into specific ones. There’s nothing more pointless then arguing “Yes it is”, “No it isn’t” when one can go and see for one’s self.
If you want the physical evidence, you just need to do a little digging and go see for yourself. It’s up to you how important it is to do so.
However, in light of the fact that there are real bonafide, divine events you can see for yourself, you cannot claim miracles don’t happen and they aren’t real. See one for yourself and then decide.
If you don’t care, then you don’t care. But not caring isn’t the same thing as ‘not real’.
For instance, there may be aliens but I could give the slightest shit if they were or weren’t and I won’t bother trying to find out because I truly don’t care. I am not going to say it’s not real or not possible. Though the vastness of space makes interaction really unlikely. [/quote]
You say I don’t believe in miracles. Not necessarily true. The existence of life itself and everything around us is a miracle, or something like that depending on ones definition. Is it the divine intervention of a Christian God? Maybe something else? Nobody KNOWS. Nobody.
“Miracles don’t prove God existence any more than anything else.
If a miracle can be proven by a factor of a natural phenomena then it is not a miracle.”
I propose that it is more likely that a miracle today is more likely to be proven to be a natural phenomena in the future (not a miracle) than to be proven divine intervention (a miracle.)
[/quote]
If true, then no miracle. A miracle, by definition could not be caused by ‘natural phenomena’ or rather, a factor of natural law. That is, unless you consider the existence of God perfectly natural and His intervening directly, rather than allowing things to be subject to their natural order and natural event.
I am saying that there are miracles, you can put your own to eyes on and see for yourself. You just to find out what they are and where they are and go there to see it. If you go experience it for yourself and you still don’t believe that they are miracles then nothing I can say will certainly convince you. But those things I am talking about, but will not reveal specifically cannot be explained and understood by any matter of academics.
I won’t be specific because I have gotten burned trying to discuss ‘miracles’ before and I won’t make the same mistake twice.
Well if you are as interested as you say, then it’s certainly available for you to find out. Like I said to smh, trying to find out the truth takes work. That applies to religion as is does to anything else. It will not fall into your lap anymore than you will suddenly know calculus. You have to work for it.
And if you are truly interested, then perhaps taking the monster face off the Sacred Heart of Jesus picture you have as an avatar might be a good place to start for sincere interest in God’s existence.
Lol…
If you take Christ out of Christmas all you have left is mas. Do atheists really want Christmas to be just about a Catholic service?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
That’s not technically correct. And it’s for DAMN sure not the prevailing interpretation.
[/quote]
I’ll respond to the rest later this morning. For now: It is both correct and the prevailing interpretation. You may look into it if you like. If you do that, and end up thinking otherwise, then show me how and why and explain to me what is the prevailing interpretation.[/quote]
I already have. Random causeless events is not the prevailing thought in QM, you can ask Dr. Matt if you don’t believe me. It’s flat incorrect, it’s not positing that the event is not caused, but it’s used to address issues of simultaneous cause/ effect over vast expanses of space\ time.
The hidden variable is brought in to localize causal relations as such demonstrated in the EPR paradox, which really isn’t a paradox.
If you split a particle over vast space and send them hurtling light years apart, change the polarity of one particle, it’s related particle will simultaneously change it’s polarity. That’s not ‘random’ or uncaused by any stretch. It’s unexplained in how over vast distances these two particles can ‘communicate’ cause and effect. It’s only a problem over space\ time. You remove that obstacle and there is no problem.
The hidden variable is brought in to try an localize the effect to the other particle. But it does not need to be necessarily localized. If the particles are beholden to the laws that bind them, then it’s the law, or their very nature that causes them to interact instantly over vast distances where otherwise they have no hope of interacting with one another.