Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Earthquake Damage]

Couldn't God get enough informtation to acurately predict the future without getting anything like the butterfly effect?

No, because the information is simply not there. Stephen Hawking has a wonderful lecture on the topic, titled Does God play dice. He used to have it on his website, but you can google for it easily.

I haven't read it yet, obviously, but is he saying "it's impossible to gather the information" or "it doesn't exist in the first place"?  AFAIK the former is more accurate, but I'm not exactly a well-respected astrophysicist.

[Strife26]

Is it some derivative of 'you can't know an electrons speed, direction, and location' is it? Cuase I'd assume that God could . . .

[Andir]

I switch sides a lot, if you notice. I'm in a good enough mood so that I just play to encourage thought-provoking discussion.

I'd agree that God can predict the future by having complete understanding of physics (isn't that everything? Why the hell am I taking chemistry?). Does he though?

Then the question you need to ask is: "When does God start ignoring the outcome of his formulas?"  There would be a defined point in any interaction when "God" just decides to stop watching if you believe in free will.  "God" would have to purge it's memory, it's thoughts, it's training, and it's teachings to find out the outcome of any one single event.  Then after it was fully entertained by the outcome, recall all those powers to make it all happen again.

[MrWiggles]

God damn it sorid, you one up my picture.

And SGU FTW.

[Andir]

God damn it sorid, you one up my picture.

And SGU FTW.

I liked your explanations though ... thanks.

I'm going to bed, so I'll not be chiming in anymore tonight.

[Ampersand]

It's called Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which stated plainly simply means that for sufficiently small objects, any measurement taken of that object directly alters other properties of that object in proportion with the accuracy of the measurement taken, such that you can never pin all of it's properties down exactly.

But the real conundrum is the two-slit photon experiment, in which sufficiently small objects don't simply behave in ways that are utterly unpredictible, they behave in ways that no single object with a single fixed location can behave. I don't claim to understand it. Anyone who does claim that is lying.

But I digress.

If you claim to have some understanding of an object that exists outside of space and time, you have just made it clear that what you are talking about is not an object. All objects have properties that can be measured in space, and in time, and it is impossible to define an object that lacks these properties in any way that we are aware of yet. The only reasonable thing you can claim about an object with no discernible attributes is that you don't know anything about it. Any other claim relies not on the knowable, but on assumptions that the claimant makes.

Here's a relevant, but not directly on topic quotation from the Iron Chariots.

"Christians try to avoid this issue by saying "God does not need a cause because He is outside of time." This is a glib non-answer. If all that is required to get around the first cause argument is an entity that exists outside of time, then all we need to do is postulate a single particle that exists outside of time and triggered the big bang. It need not have any special powers at all. Besides, this particle might even exist, depending on how you define "outside of time". Photons, light particles, do not experience time, since they move at the speed of light. Therefore, according to this argument, light can pop into existence without cause.

Theists will object that this particle should have a cause. But they have already refuted this argument by granting that there exists an uncaused cause in the first place. If God can exist without a cause, why not a particle? Why not the universe?"

[The Mad Engineer]

I really don't like this "God" fellow.

My greatest happiness is to understand and quantify things.  But as soon as I ask too many questions, the answer inevitably comes, "Your mortal brain is unable to comprehend!"


So my question to all you religious folk is, Will I be able to understand the basic principles that the Natural and Supernatural world work on after death?  Will I be able to quantify god?

If not, then why?

[Strife26]

Do you have the same problem with the afformentioned uncertainity principle?
Some things are unquantifiable.

[RAM]

Just because nobody knows exactly what is going on in quantum physics, doesn't mean that there isn't a perfectly reasonable explanation that will have physicists and know-it-alls everywhere kicking themselves for not realising it sooner...

Hmmm, I think I am getting better, I 'want' to point out why everyone else is wrong, but I don't 'need' to...

[vitaoma]

So my question to all you religious folk is, Will I be able to understand the basic principles that the Natural and Supernatural world work on after death?  Will I be able to quantify god?

If not, then why?

I don't know if you will, and probably no one knows. The mistery of faith is beyond our (my?) capacity of understanding.
"The Secret" is a book, later turned into a movie which says that if you want a thing and you believe a thing, then it will become true. All the religions search for the meaning of life and the true happiness. There are many religions which are based in this same concept/law of "you want, you get". Descartes described God as a perfect formula that would have mastered this "law" and (as the Bible says) we, being created in His image, would be able to control this law, but not master it. Descartes described it all, he even wrote about some examples of things that happened after he had thought.

The difference of religion and science is that science tries to explain everything but can't explain anything and religion doesn't try to explain anything but explains all.

[Ampersand]

No, it doesn't. It doesn't explain anything. To say that the universe exists because God made it is not an explanation, it is a hand wave. To say that something happened because God wanted it to happen is a hand wave. One can just as easily insert any entity into that position, imaginary or otherwise, with the same effect.

Why does the universe exist? A wizard did it. Magic Man done it. An intangible superintelligent psychic Dolphin did it. They are just as valid as saying God did it, because they are just as verifiable, in that they aren't.

[Sordid]

"The Secret" is a book, later turned into a movie which says that if you want a thing and you believe a thing, then it will become true.

Yes, and it is complete and utter bullshit.

The difference of religion and science is that science tries to explain everything but can't explain anything and religion doesn't try to explain anything but explains all.

No, the difference between religion and science is that science actually works.

Also, you still haven't given us any examples of things that you consider 'perfect' in the world, which was one of your main points in the OP.

[Andir]

Why does the universe exist? A wizard did it. Magic Man done it. An intangible superintelligent psychic Dolphin did it. They are just as valid as saying God did it, because they are just as verifiable, in that they aren't.

I was told it was a rusty tin can.  I read it on the bottom of a cereal box, so it must be true.

[Karlito]

I've been a pretty devout atheist all of my life, but recently I've moved more towards what some might call agnostic.  It doesn't really matter if God exists or not, since he's never influenced me or the rest of the world in any way that I can detect.  The best we can do is live our lives to standards that we set for ourselves.  For me, being rewarded for living a good life seems wrong.

[Nilocy]

To be honest, i really do believe the scientologist way is the only way, or Amish, depending on what day you come across me.

The major problem i have is that why are there so many religions with different versions of one text all saying so many conflicting things?

What turned me off religion is that its just way to hateful to be any good for the world. And from an entirely logical point of view, humanity doesn't need it any more. We have laws, governments and people to look after us now. I don't need a piece of writing written 2000 (its over nine... wait no it isn't) years old to tell me what i can and can't do today! I have my morals, which were not hammered into me when i was young, my parents took a really good approach and just didn't care what religion i believed in, so yeah.

All of this wouldn't have been possible without religion. I have absolutely no quarrals with people of a faith or another or those without, I love you all equally!

And again folks. Why seriously, oh why are you all mean to each other?