Ask a Theist!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-02-2012, 05:19 PM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2012 05:29 PM by rook2004.)
RE: Ask a Theist!
(23-02-2012 09:08 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(23-02-2012 09:04 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(23-02-2012 08:24 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Rook explained it pretty well.

You have to understand that everything in His plan happens exactly as He wants it to. He is perfect, so His plan is perfect. His omnipresence allows Him to be present in all facets of time.

OK. I think I sort of get it. Universe is a 4D object (well, simple model of universe is at least), so something that looks like it's changing with time is static if viewed from outside time.

Yeah, it becomes a constant logical struggle to apply infinite to the finite. I know I have to correct myself a lot when it comes to this.

It's even a little bit worse than that, actually, and what I'm going say is something I still struggle with trying to comprehend. I have provided a TL;DR.

The nature of matter is such that you can't have the initial conditions of the universe. That is, if you try to "slice" a 3D picture of the universe for a given time, you can very accurately resolve where everything is, but when you resolve it accurately enough you lose any information about where it is going. The problem is not one merely of insufficient information, either--that is, perfect knowledge of the initial, for the sake of argument, position and velocity of every particle in the universe is not just impossible for us to discover, but is a proposition defied by the very nature of the universe itself.

I'll try to explain myself by way of example and make it clear, but it's going to be tough. Photons travel in packets, right? You get little ticks of electric response from a photometer when a light source is dialed way down and produces only one photon per second. We also know that photons are perturbations in electric and magnetic fields, governed by Maxwell's equations (in essence: a changing electric field induces a magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field induces an electrical field). According to observation and these equations, though, the electric and magnetic field for a photon is distributed infinitely throughout space. Imagine a sine wave (the amplitude of, say, the electric field of a photon) that extends from negative infinity to positive infinity. That is the actual, physical, observable nature of a photon.....of a pure frequency.

And that's the catch. Photons travel in packets because they are a superposition of different frequencies. With photons, frequency is proportional to momentum (not speed; the speed of light is, again, constant in all reference frames). So what this says is that either photons have a pure frequency but are distributed infinitely throughout space (along the direction of propagation), OR photons have a known location in space (the place where the field peaks and troughs maximally) but their frequency is only known within a certain fuzziness. Here's a picture of "beat", which is named after the sound you get when two sound waves of different frequencies are superposed. You can take my word for it that, given an infinite number of frequencies (even in a small range), the "beat" will only occur once between negative and positive infinity.

[Image: beats.gif]

So the nature of photons is that if you know exactly where they are, you have no idea what their momentum (frequency) is, and if you know exactly what their momentum (frequency) is, you can't tell where they are at all. This is an analogy from a classical understanding of electromagnetism, but it has been found to apply to all matter based on observations made about quantum mechanics in the last century. The problem for God, then, would be the same problem as trying to create a rock so big he can't move it. One can't know everything about a universe like ours in its current state current state and also know everything about its future state. You can get pretty dang close with future predictions, especially on a macro scale...but God has hidden perfect knowledge of the future from himself by his very design.

Also, it means my musings about God making a 4D object was cute, but relied on an assumption that God was omnipresent and omniscient. At least now we have a proposal (all that crap I just wrote) that allows us free will, philosophically, since God has clearly, in his infinite wisdom, hidden the future of the universe from himself.

But seriously, I dropped quantum in school about halfway through, so if someone cares to correct me please do so.



TL;DR: The Heisenberg uncertainty principle means God doesn't know shit. At least about the future.


-EDIT-

Here's another pretty graph. You can make a square wave with the right superposition of sine waves:
[Image: fourier-waves.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rook2004's post
23-02-2012, 06:25 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
You don't follow that your god created angels in his image so that he wouldn't be alone and in his grand magnum opus created a world which houses humans which were also created in his image? He's replicating himself all the time, they just aren't the perfect likenesses.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2012, 05:35 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
Maybe you have gotten this question already, but wanted to know as it was the biggest thing for me when I stopped believing.

If you didn't believe or it no longer seemed true to you that the possibility of any deity existed, would you follow what is most true or would you continue to try and stay with the deity regardless of what appears to be true? I ask this because most atheists I know would readily admit there was a god (making them theists toward that particular deity even though they probably wouldn't care to worship it) given enough evidence for it... granted many religious people seem to specify that there is no way to prove their deity's existance. Well, this isn't about atheist though, it's about theists. Obviously there are theists willing to separate what is true and what we concider gods, or there would be no atheists. I remember you saying that you were an agnostic (I suppose you mean agnostic atheist), are you any more gnostic now, or simply more theist?... hmm, how many questions do we ask again?

Defy gravity... stand up. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes craniumonempty's post
24-02-2012, 04:43 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
Is your god a loving god or a mean spirited vengeful god?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2012, 08:17 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(24-02-2012 04:43 PM)weekendskp Wrote:  Is your god a loving god or a mean spirited vengeful god?

I know the answer to this one.
He loves KC and his family, but pretty much fucks with everyone else.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
24-02-2012, 08:55 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
Does god know the exact position and momentum of an electron?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ben's post
27-02-2012, 11:13 AM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2012 11:18 AM by kingschosen.)
RE: Ask a Theist!
(23-02-2012 06:25 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  You don't follow that your god created angels in his image so that he wouldn't be alone and in his grand magnum opus created a world which houses humans which were also created in his image? He's replicating himself all the time, they just aren't the perfect likenesses.

That's not duplication.
(24-02-2012 05:35 AM)craniumonempty Wrote:  If you didn't believe or it no longer seemed true to you that the possibility of any deity existed, would you follow what is most true or would you continue to try and stay with the deity regardless of what appears to be true?

I would follow what appears to be most true. Ironically, this is kind of how my conversation to Christianity went.

Quote:I ask this because most atheists I know would readily admit there was a god (making them theists toward that particular deity even though they probably wouldn't care to worship it) given enough evidence for it... granted many religious people seem to specify that there is no way to prove their deity's existance. Well, this isn't about atheist though, it's about theists. Obviously there are theists willing to separate what is true and what we concider gods, or there would be no atheists. I remember you saying that you were an agnostic (I suppose you mean agnostic atheist), are you any more gnostic now, or simply more theist?... hmm, how many questions do we ask again?

Gnosticism, IMO, is impossible. No one is omniscient; therefore, no one can claim certainty. A "1" or "7", again IMO, cannot exist.
(24-02-2012 04:43 PM)weekendskp Wrote:  Is your god a loving god or a mean spirited vengeful god?

God's morality cannot be judged. There are instances in the Bible where He is both when viewed through human morality; however, His overall morality cannot be defined.
(24-02-2012 08:55 PM)Ben Wrote:  Does god know the exact position and momentum of an electron?

Yes.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2012, 11:29 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(23-02-2012 09:28 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(23-02-2012 09:21 AM)lucradis Wrote:  I also liked Rooks explanation.
I find all of the discussions on here amazing when it comes to trying to prove a god or dis-prove a god. I'm pretty sure that in reality if there were a creature that had created us all and was in fact the only thing that had never required creation itself, we would never have any way of scientifically studying it. None.
It would be beyond us to even see, hear or smell. Let alone scrutinize with science.
Our science would be about as useful as the tips of our fingers at pulverizing diamonds.
God would be outside of all time as he would be the creator of time, god would be outside of our dimension, as he would be the creator of it. Not that this creature couldn't do what it wanted. None of our rules could ever apply. We could never create rules that we could even assume something like this would follow.
this creature makes the rules. This creature is the rules.
This is why I think KCs theology makes the most sense within the confines of the belief in god. I have a hard time getting my head around a god that wouldn't be in control of everything.
But i do think KC has the same problem only to a much larger degree. Whereas I can see outside the box and even imagine a god that lives only to fuck with us like the ultimate reality show, I don't think KC can envision this God.
Am I wrong KC?

dang bro

Well done. Really dude. You have a pretty good theological mind.

You are correct.

Oh my. Rolleyes

It's all in your head, because there is no other place it could be.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2012, 07:05 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(23-02-2012 09:21 AM)lucradis Wrote:  I also liked Rooks explanation.
I find all of the discussions on here amazing when it comes to trying to prove a god or dis-prove a god. I'm pretty sure that in reality if there were a creature that had created us all and was in fact the only thing that had never required creation itself, we would never have any way of scientifically studying it. None.
It would be beyond us to even see, hear or smell. Let alone scrutinize with science.
Our science would be about as useful as the tips of our fingers at pulverizing diamonds.
God would be outside of all time as he would be the creator of time, god would be outside of our dimension, as he would be the creator of it. Not that this creature couldn't do what it wanted. None of our rules could ever apply. We could never create rules that we could even assume something like this would follow.
this creature makes the rules. This creature is the rules.
This is why I think KCs theology makes the most sense within the confines of the belief in god. I have a hard time getting my head around a god that wouldn't be in control of everything.
But i do think KC has the same problem only to a much larger degree. Whereas I can see outside the box and even imagine a god that lives only to fuck with us like the ultimate reality show, I don't think KC can envision this God.
Am I wrong KC?

No. While KC obviously approves anything that makes his position sound even remotely sensible, things don't work like that. While people wouldn't be able to see or feel god (and then again KC begs to differ because he claims he actually did experience god, even if now he agrees that it would be impossible) we should be able to see god's control and influence. Sure, he doesn't respect any laws, including the ones of physics but somehow, those laws are never broken. Conveniently, god chooses never to break the natural laws when the right people are watching.

Prayer should work and it doesn't. The fate of the chosen ones should be different from the rest and it isn't. No matter which group is really chosen, they suffer or enjoy their life in the same random manner as everybody else. Miracles should happen and they don't. The world works exactly the way it would if there were no supreme being at all.

The only reasonable possibility for a god is not Calvinism, but Deism. Calvinism claims a permanent influence of god and no such thing is there to be observed. Deism claims that god created everything, set everything in motion and then either died or decided to no longer give a fuck. A deistic god who caused the Big Bang and then went about his/her/its way is the only thing that would include god and make any kind of sense.

Calvinism is the exact opposite. It presents a self-contradictory and wasteful god who does *everything* all the time. He not only makes me do some stuff, but he goes through all the trouble of giving me self awareness and the strong opinion that it was all my decision and I am to blame or to congratulate for whatever happens. A god that takes an equally close care of the exact substances and quantities in pigeon shit and in the wavelength of gamma radiations. A god with a plan that includes me feeling like farting, suppressing the fart until I start sweating and then making the fart feeling go away inexplicably. A plan that includes the dirt on my shoes and my appetite for pissing KC off. A plan that includes babies born without skin and mass murderers who die peacefully of old age.

Are you honestly trying to say that this is in any way reasonable?

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Malleus's post
27-02-2012, 07:39 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
You're right only deism makes sense... HORSESHIT.
None of it makes sense. Reread my post.
I said his makes the most sense in that god would have to be in control of everything within the confines of his theology.
None of it makes sense. Not having a god doesn't make sense either.
My main point was that here would be no way to actually study a god. Not the kind of thing we would call a god anyways.
My other point was that KC is boxed in by his logic conflicting with his theology. He can't see another type of god existing because it wouldn't make any sense to him. It's the same reason most of us DON'T believe in god. We can't imagine one that makes sense within the confines of our level of logic.

Anyways you don't have to debate with me, I don't believe in god.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: