Did you ever learn any “lessons” in a classroom?
If so, were such lessons derived from arrogant, condescending, even hateful teachers?
You deserve no further responses from me, and you will get none.
My original contention stands. The dual nature of electrons stands as a profound and unexpected scientific discovery, notwithstanding the nonsense prattled attempting to trivialize it.
IGNORE LIST: Frylock The Insufferable
Your claim was that one demonstrated the electron was a particle, the other demonstrated it’s a wave.
But your links* show that one discovered the electron, and the other showed it has wavelike properties in addition to its particle-like properties.
*Admittedly, that pair of links does match your claim better than I thought it did–the brief description given at the nobel site for what the prizes were for turns out to be pretty opaque.
OK?
And this is pertinent to the question of an omnimax God … how?
The term contradiction has a broader definition and usage in our language than the much more narrow usage in which you must explicitly have X and not X.
“a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another”
You can adopt any concept of God that you want. That doesn’t make your concept of God accurate or even defensible.
I see absolutely no reason to accept that claim – especially in a discussion of an “omnimax” God. You can’t attempt to refute the notion of an “omnimax” God by first postulating that God is “only slightly more intelligent and powerful than the average human.”
Well, yeah you’re right of course. But people often make the inference from “contradictory” to “mysterious because apparently impossible” when, in fact, the sense in which the thing in question was “contradictory” didn’t imply that it was impossible. In other words, they think of something as “contradictory” in one sense, then draw inferences from something’s being “contradictory” as though it were “contradictory” in the other sense. I think one way to avoid this is just to get people to use “contradictory” in the more technical sense. It’s not a “more correct” way to use the language, but it might be conducive to clearer thinking about the topic.
Well, POE shows that you have to give up at least on corner of the triangle, and it seems likely that God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence are both hyperbolic. The OP presents another argument against the existence of an Omnimax God, which I found interesting.
Possibly. But not necessarily. God may set his freedom of action with an eye at man’s maximum technical abilities from the get-go. Or not. Since combinatorial explosions are ubiquitous (see for example the Dinner Party problem) non-measurable interventions could be rather extensive. It’s POE that provides the real constraint on possible Divinities.
MfM: “Plausibly, God has a lot on His plate and many of His actions may be other than what humans care about.” So if He needs to tweak His natural constants to maintain the Arp 220 galaxy in an adequately pleasant shape, human beings will probably never perceive it. Great power doesn’t imply that He would leave fingerprints and the greatest power would be capable of invisibility (though also creating POE problems).
I think it’s been generally understood for a while that man isn’t the center of the universe, certain interpretations of a few passages of Genesis notwithstanding. I don’t see how an Entity who loves reason in some of His creation (or merely finds it diverting) should be prohibited from having other pursuits or responsibilities.
Brother Dibble: the world is like a butcher shop. In Brooklyn. God is neither dice nor scale: He is the shopkeeper with the heavy thumb. Anyway, as I said up above, given the dependence of history on happenstance, there’s considerable scope for largely anonymous and imperceptible intervention. There are strict theoretical and also practical limitations on human observation. This assumes of course that God is a worldly interventionist, which He may not be.
As for the Creator’s motivation, the problem is not a lack of hypotheses, quite the opposite. Scientists running simulations vary their parameters systematically and typically at the beginning of the experiment, so under analogous circumstances, we’d expect a noninterventionist Deist universe. Then again, there could be some automated Divinity in the latest run. Or maybe some program bugs need to be squashed on the fly. Hobbyist, zookeeper and pet owner are among other possible analogies, though Christian tradition leans towards the parenting model.
NAme a human religion that believes this, though.
No-ones saying God can’t have other irons in the fire. (Quasi-)Omnimax God certainly would not be hampered in any way by such multitasking. That’s not the point.
The point is that I haven’t yet come across a conception of deity that doesn’t seem to care about what happens to humans in some way.
Oh, there’s a thumb all right. It’s pressing down pretty hard on people, if the PoE is to be believed.
So “GAPS!” it is, then. Can’t argue with that.
It’s the equivalent of that practical joke where you tap someone on the shoulder and then quickly duck to the other side. If that’s all God can do, I don’t think he’s worthy of the title. If the workings of God are indistinguishable from chance, why, oh why, even postulate that one exists?
What’s *your *hypothesis, though?
But why do the circumstances have to be analogous? Human scientists are limited in their ability to interfere without affecting the experiment (yet can do so in a limited fashion). Are you saying God is similarly limited? That’s not even demi-omnipotence, then. The experimental parameters are apparently more powerful than God.
…did it just happen to break down when the bicameral mind did? Was it programmed to degrade exactly in pace with human knowledge? Is it affected by the magnetic properties of iron, is that why it exited after the Bronze Age?
“God’s a shitty programmer” is a new take on the PoE for me. “It’s OK, little kid dying of intestinal parasites, this is only the Beta. Thanks for playtesting, though”
None of those are very flattering to God, or an argument in favour of worship, if you ask me. You make my misotheist argument for me.
OrvilleWright, please stick to making arguments. Avoid the personal remarks about other posters.
Personal insults are a violation of board rules as is posting the contents of one’s Ignore list.
You have been consistently rude in multiple threads over the last couple of days and this is a Warning to dial back the hostility and to obey the rules of this board.
[ /Moderating ]