Do random events require God?

[Sideline]

Yeah, there is some truth in that statement, I understand where you are coming from- you may not agree with us Christians but the reason why, to us, it’s not exactly the same, is because Christians believe that there are other forms of valid knowledge than those derivable through experiment and observation.

For a Christian, It’s kinda like two puzzle pieces. Both the Christian and the Atheist agree there has to be more pieces to the puzzle than the one we both hold in common. So the Christian “plugs in” his other puzzle piece, developed over 2000 years, and to him it fits. So to him, its not the same as saying “we don’t know”.

See what I mean?

I understand point A and point B, but I lost you somewhere on the journey.

You and I agree that experiment and observation don’t complete the puzzle, to use your analogy. But from where I’m sitting, you are adding on pieces, which might even match the contours, but are just blank pieces.

I’m really not sure how saying God did it, even in the context of 2000 years of dogma, explains anything.

I’m not trying to start an argument, or to be snide. I really appreciate your response, I am just not sure how it adds anything of substance.

 

[davidv]

I understand point A and point B, but I lost you somewhere on the journey.

You and I agree that experiment and observation don’t complete the puzzle, to use your analogy. But from where I’m sitting, you are adding on pieces, which might even match the contours, but are just blank pieces.

I’m really not sure how saying God did it, even in the context of 2000 years of dogma, explains anything.

I’m not trying to start an argument, or to be snide. I really appreciate your response, I am just not sure how it adds anything of substance.

It seems to me that of the course of human history, a lot “why” questions have been asked about our existance. The missing piece in the analogy is the part of us that we call spiritual. This piece is an answer to these “why” questions.

 

[Sideline]

It seems to me that of the course of human history, a lot “why” questions have been asked about our existance. The missing piece in the analogy is the part of us that we call spiritual. This piece is an answer to these “why” questions.

Yes, but it’s not really answering those questions at all. It is just using words like “God”, “mystery”, and “spirit” to cover over the holes of our knowledge. Words that don’t have clear definitions or meanings.

I’m still not seeing how saying “God did it” is any different from saying “I don’t know”.

 

[mschrank]

Sideline- I trust you’re not trying to be a troll, don’t worry.

Of course to you, the “God” piece is a blank piece. That’s because you don’t believe in it. However, you do understand that to the believer, the piece isn’t blank, right?

The reason why I referred to the 2000 years bit is because to the believer, the 2000 years of philosophy and experience isn’t blank. I’m not trying to create a “proof” for God, just explaining the difference in perspective.

The concept of words like “God” and “sprit” being simply fill-ins for gaps in knowledge of course presupposes that Atheism is true. Of course, the inverse, that those words actually refer to real things presupposes that Theism is true.

 

[davidv]

Yes, but it’s not really answering those questions at all. It is just using words like “God”, “mystery”, and “spirit” to cover over the holes of our knowledge. Words that don’t have clear definitions or meanings.

I’m still not seeing how saying “God did it” is any different from saying “I don’t know”.

But “God did it” is not the answer to a lot of the spiritual questions. That God made himself known to many individuals throughout history was recorded in the oral history of the ancients and eventually written down.

 

[Sideline]

Sideline- I trust you’re not trying to be a troll, don’t worry.

Thank-you.

Of course to you, the “God” piece is a blank piece. That’s because you don’t believe in it. However, you do understand that to the believer, the piece isn’t blank, right?

Yes and no. I know believers believe that the pieces aren’t blank, but when I start asking specific questions about what is on a particular piece the answers are incredibly vague.

Recall that my first post on this thread was in response to a person who thought that people like me were crazy because we “deny that there must have been a Creator” (emphasis mine). He is saying not only that there is a creator, but that to doubt that there is a creator is insane. But what exactly is on that piece? How did God do it? This is what I mean that the piece is blank. It looks like an answer, but it isn’t one.

The reason why I referred to the 2000 years bit is because to the believer, the 2000 years of philosophy and experience isn’t blank. I’m not trying to create a “proof” for God, just explaining the difference in perspective.

I shouldn’t have suggested that all of the pieces were blank. There are answers there, but not nearly as many as people seem to think. I didn’t get the impression trying to make a “proof” of God, by the way. I understood what you were intending, and I appreciate the spirit behind it.

The concept of words like “God” and “sprit” being simply fill-ins for gaps in knowledge of course presupposes that Atheism is true. Of course, the inverse, that those words actually refer to real things presupposes that Theism is true.

This is where I think we disagree. I’m not really trying to argue that God doesn’t exist. I’m actually trying to say that… oh, this is going to sound so bad, but I can’t think of a way around it… I’m trying to say that God, as it has been presented to me, is actually meaningless. “God created the universe” doesn’t really mean anything. No one seems to have a clear concept of what God is, and how he would have created anything. Unless people here do have a clear concept of that, and they just aren’t sharing.

 

[Sideline]

But “God did it” is not the answer to a lot of the spiritual questions. That God made himself known to many individuals throughout history was recorded in the oral history of the ancients and eventually written down.

We’re going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Hi, insane person here.

So, what inspired God to say “now”?

Saying “God did it” is no better an explanation than saying “I don’t know.”

If you’re an atheist, then your answer isn’t “I don’t know” it’s “I know that there is no reason or meaning to life.”

We Christians are the ones who don’t know. We believe that there must be some purpose, there must be a creator, and we spend our lives trying to learn more about God. But it’s a long journey to get to know God. We talk a lot about the few things we do know, the dogmas and doctrines, but there’s a lot more that we don’t know than we do know. It’s all very mysterious.

 

[Sideline]

If you’re an atheist, then your answer isn’t “I don’t know” it’s “I know that there is no reason or meaning to life.”

That’s the nice thing about Christians. Not only are they experts on God they are experts on everyone else as well.

We Christians are the ones who don’t know. We believe that there must be some purpose, there must be a creator, and we spend our lives trying to learn more about God. But it’s a long journey to get to know God. We talk a lot about the few things we do know, the dogmas and doctrines, but there’s a lot more that we don’t know than we do know. It’s all very mysterious.

Wow, you think that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is insane, but claim almost total ignorance about what it is that you believe in. It is very mysterious.

 

[Asuno]

Perhaps “randomness” and “luck” are not what any of us really think they are. You (Neil) ask if God determines how random events unfold. Well, I believe the answer is, yes and no. Yes, He got the ball rolling, so to speak, in its intial stage (in all events that transpire). But remember, He designed the universe to be an interactive universe. I guess what I’m saying is, the quantum system of unpredictable randomness exists as a result of our free will…or, perhaps vice versa. I personally believe that each and every one of us exerts an influence in this quantum field–we are part of it, after all–and it is these conflicting influences that produce chaos in this universal system in the first place. Perhaps the theories that espouse “consciousness determines reality” might be a little right after all. I don’t believe human consciousness produces reality as some theorists do, but I do believe it influences the shape of it.

So maybe we really do make our own luck. Maybe that’s why some of the greatest philosophers have cautioned us to be careful about what we’re thinking, too.

 

[mschrank]

This is where I think we disagree. I’m not really trying to argue that God doesn’t exist. I’m actually trying to say that… oh, this is going to sound so bad, but I can’t think of a way around it… I’m trying to say that God, as it has been presented to me, is actually meaningless.

Do you mean you find it meaningless because Christianity cannot give technical explanations on the creation of matter, the initial state of the singularity, the big bang, etc? If by meaningless you mean that Christianity does not really improve your understanding of the physical nature of reality, then you’re probably right.

“God created the universe” doesn’t really mean anything. No one seems to have a clear concept of what God is, and how he would have created anything. Unless people here do have a clear concept of that, and they just aren’t sharing.

“God created the universe” means “something big and powerful and infinitely beyond our understanding happened”. In a philosophical sense, I think it is actually closer to truth than many of the theories that try to pin the whole thing down. I’ve heard some pretty crazy theories about wormholes begetting universes, pure speculation of course. Sometimes gesturing up at the sky and shrugging one’s shoulders is more truthful than a just-so-story. But I digress… but you’re right, yes, the statement “God created the universe” does not tell us much about how it happened. It doesn’t say, “and there was a primordial particle, which was so infinitely dense, which God created by…”

The reason why this is is this, firstly, Christianity tells us how to go to heaven not how the heavens go. As much as those who love knowledge and wonder at all costs would hate it Christianity never tried to do natural theology. Christians believe in a transcendent God who is apart from his creation.

Secondly, I don’t know if you know this or not, but Christians do not believe the Bible is literally dictated by God. I think a lot of atheists have a problem with the whole Christian religion because of what is in Genesis. However, in all intellectual honesty I hope you can see how that is a strawman by my explanation here. Christians believe the Bible is inspired by God.

There is a big difference. For example, Muslims believe that the Koran is literally dictated by God. Mohammed goes into a trance and when he wakes up there is a text in front of him. Now if we believed Genesis was dictated by God, then we’d have a problem because its scientifically invalid. We know that creation did not literally happen that way. So God must be lying, or it was just a man making things up.

When something is inspired, it means God uses what is there and puts the spirit of truth in the writer’s mind. Genesis is, clearly, a generic semitic myth (quite old really), reworked by several people over a long period of time. They had to use what they had, men writing this hundreds of years before Christ (dunno what the critical dates are) had no knowledge of modern science. They applied the wisdom of the Jewish people to something pagan.

A couple of questions for you now, excuse me if they sound sarcastic I don’t mean them to be so. Have you ever read the Bible with a good commentary (i.e., a critical yet not anti-Christian one) and have you read at least the first parts of the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas? I acknowledge that there are good arguments for Atheism out there, but I also believe many of them have been around and throughly answered for a long time. I think Richard Dawkins needs to read the Summa in order to come up with some new material.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Wow, you think that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is insane, but claim almost total ignorance about what it is that you believe in. It is very mysterious.

Well, I can admit what I don’t know. You seem to assume that if you don’t know, it must not exist. Why do you turn science into a religion? Why do you assume that anything that can’t be explained by science must not exist? Sounds a little irrational to me

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Perhaps “randomness” and “luck” are not what any of us really think they are. You (Neil) ask if God determines how random events unfold. Well, I believe the answer is, yes and no. Yes, He got the ball rolling, so to speak, in its intial stage (in all events that transpire). But remember, He designed the universe to be an interactive universe. I guess what I’m saying is, the quantum system of unpredictable randomness exists as a result of our free will…or, perhaps vice versa. I personally believe that each and every one of us exerts an influence in this quantum field–we are part of it, after all–and it is these conflicting influences that produce chaos in this universal system in the first place. Perhaps the theories that espouse “consciousness determines reality” might be a little right after all. I don’t believe human consciousness produces reality as some theorists do, but I do believe it influences the shape of it.

So maybe we really do make our own luck. Maybe that’s why some of the greatest philosophers have cautioned us to be careful about what we’re thinking, too.

I definitely think this is true at least in our brains. All I have to do is decide to move my arm, and it moves. It’s like there is some link between my free will and what my body does. Must be quantum events in the brain controlled by the soul.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes, He got the ball rolling, so to speak, in its intial stage (in all events that transpire).

The thing is, a rolling ball is a deterministic action. Is there such a thing as a machine that can produce randomness? I don’t think so, because such a thing wouldn’t actually be a machine at all, it would not operate deterministically.

 

[mschrank]

Yes, a machine can produce randomness. It’s easy.

Build particle sensors around a ball of uranium. When a particle decays, it will fling off a bit of energy. The decay is totally random, in keeping with quantum mechanics. Call each sensor built around the ball “A”,“B” and have that sensor output to a computer. You’ll see a truly random set of letters (or numbers whatever you want) outputted.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes, a machine can produce randomness. It’s easy.

Build particle sensors around a ball of uranium. When a particle decays, it will fling off a bit of energy. The decay is totally random, in keeping with quantum mechanics. Call each sensor built around the ball “A”,“B” and have that sensor output to a computer. You’ll see a truly random set of letters (or numbers whatever you want) outputted.

Well, today we know that physics isn’t deterministic. But a classical machine is deterministic by definition.

So can we really say that God created the universe and let it “go along on its own according to natural laws” if we now know that those laws are not completely deterministic? Or do we now have to credit God with directly authoring each and every random event?

 

[mschrank]

Well those natural laws aren’t even really natural laws for one. If we’re talking about laws in the sense that we understand their essence. All those fancy equations that physicists come up with are just there to predict outcomes not to explain them.

It’s kinda like you see a guy who strips down to his underwear every day at 6 pm, runs out of his house and flaps his arms like a chicken, hooting wildly for 15 minutes.

You can make a mathematical equation where you can predict when he’s next going to do that, but why on God’s green earth he does such a strange thing is beyond anyone’s guess. Matter, at the lowest level, is just as bizarre as the chicken flapper. Weirder really… I’m not sure what a Materialist really is when it turns out that Matter isn’t even material. Instead its open space and things that may or may not exist.

The quantum law is, there is no law. When people talk about the “laws” of nature, maybe the better word is “habits”.

You can credit God with it if you want, but its not really science per say. It does leave room for God though, certainly kinda takes the wind out of the sails of the guy who wants Faustian perfect knowledge. I bet Bacon is spinning in his grave.

 

[mackone]

The thing that always puzzles me is, why did the big bang happen when it did and not 10 seconds before, and not 10 seconds afterwards? What said “now”?

THAT destroyed the Big Bang Theory reeeaal quick!

And to think, that was the best thing that some theoreticians had going! Similar to Creation or at least very creationistic. The Big Bang !?!?!?! :nope: God said LET THERE BE and there was a big bang, Oh well, they could always give it a try, at least once, to theorize GOD.

 

[RobbyS]

Hmmm, I seldom venture into these threads. Even random events are consistent in their randomness. I believe that everything has a cause - action and inaction, occurrence and non-occurrence. Actually, things that don’t occur have as much cause as those that do, correct? Man cannot see the cause, and some things science has not and likely will not reveal.

One can say that all motion is derived from the origin, or big bang, or perpetual existence. However, I ponder the cause of the origin, big bang, or perpetual existence. Perfectly circular.

Random is, to me, simply the unpredictable. As to the “Big Bang,” it is not caused by any thing in the universe. It is like getting at the cause of analogy. It “exists” only in the minds of physicists who contemplate it. The connundrums of nonbelievers is that it brings back the "hypothesis"of God into their realm. Many hate the thought of coping with it.

 

[mackone]

CONUNDRUMI S THE RIGHT WORD!

This is not the only conundrum that is used by Agnostic Atheists.
the nice thing about a conundrum is that, by definition, conundrums have resolutions.

:clapping: To discuss the random factor in quantum physics you have to use mathematics. What Physics has to do with Philosophy and so then religion, is a Paradigm. So what part of the Theist or of the non-theist Materialist philosophies correlate by way of this paradigm to what conundrum in the mathematics of Physics and the random factor in quantum arithmetic? Theist philosophy is on a solid foundation and has resolved many conundrums, even such a mathematical conundrum as this one.

The discussion here is not how Physics defines God. The discussion here is How does GOD define Physics!

God has already defined the mathematics required to resolve this conundrum. Now some one can work them out and write them down!:tsktsk: