You won’t get any argument from me on that note, Bubba.
I heard a Christian physics Phd (they do exisit) suggest that the 6-7 “extra”
dimensions of string theory might provide scientific rather than miraculous
basis for some of God’s more spectacular feats.
Religions are based on desire, and it doesn’t mean a person is ignorant. Religion is a tool that can be used for good, just like fire can destroy, or help warm a person. A knife can be a help to either kill or save a life like in the hands of a skilled doctor.Same with a gun, it can be used to get food or destroy another person. It isn’t the religion, but how it is used, that can make it good or bad.
And that deals with the OP about evidence for the existence of god how…?
But wouldn’t you agree that, in general, true beliefs are more useful than false ones?
The fact that believing in ghosts may *occasionally *provide some accidental utility does not change the fact that believing in ghosts is mostly a silly thing to do.
Right. And how would that work, exactly? :rolleyes:
All he’s doing is picking a little-understood corner of science and hiding his God belief inside it. It’s like saying “Maybe dark energy is God!” Since we don’t have a good handle on exactly what dark energy is, such a statement is harder to refute. But it doesn’t explain anything. It doesn’t describe a mechanism for how these extra dimensions could be used to perform miracles. It’s just a way to tuck his belief away someplace where it’s not easily falsifiable.
The null hypothesis question comes from science, and does not have to be especially validated for this matter. I don’t care how effective it is in “converting” theists - that’s not my goal. I’d love to hear an argument about why their brand of god is the null hypothesis, but I’d settle for them many of them either understanding the concept, or, if they do, understanding how it applies.
I was speaking of a specific case. I’ve given up on some atheists, not because they are necessarily wrong in their conclusions but more because their arguments don’t hold together.
Not losing - a strategic retreat or advancing to the rear. 
It is exactly why we can’t prove God doesn’t exist - any aspect which gets contradicted just gets changed, which is easy when there is nothing there. You’d think that if there is a real God he’d come down sometime and say “You say I do what?” Same thing as the liberal theist position that the Bible is the word of God except where it is an allegory except where some clowns added stuff that is totally wrong, and except for pages 1,3,15, 25 and 107 on alternate Tuesdays. Rules for interpreting the Bible make the rules for fizzbin seem simple. (Why did I know I’d find the rules very easily? )
We can reproduce some of God’s most miraculous feats. And do lots of stuff god never did. Stop the sun? Just build a mirror in space, or set up big floodlights around the battlefield. And it explains why no one else noticed. National Lampoon’s “Not the Bible” gave instructions for recreating many of the miracles of Jesus.
Details await completion of theory.
Last I heard they are supposed to have the mathematical basis
fleshed out around 2050, so we may be in for a long wait.
No, it is not a God of the Gaps argument.
In GG God’s miraculous activity is substituted for natural causes.
In the scenario proffered for the explanation for miracles God employs
nature in activity that appears to us to be miraculous, but is really not.
I agree a GG argument for DE any any other aspect of nature is no help
to us at all.
I figure I have the upper hand in any debate where my adversary
has nothing to offer but wisecracks, and where the best he can do
for documenatary citaion is something like the National Lampoon.
LOL. It’s absolutely a god of the gaps argument. God of the gaps is tweaking God’s characteristics so they neatly coincide with the parts of science where our knowledge of nature is currently sketchy. Saying “God uses the curled-up extra dimensions of string theory to work miracles!” is a perfect example of this sort of thinking.
You might start with a citation outside the Bible that these miracles ever actually happened. To someone living 2,000 years ago, musicians inside a little box you keep in your pocket or me video-Skying with my daughter in Germany or just flying is more miraculous than most stuff Jesus supposedly did.
Water into wine? Big deal - I have Kool-Aid.
I’d say that they don’t have to tweak anything, since God can do anything. The GG argument is simply - I don’t know how this happens, so God did it. You don’t have to give a mechanism how God supposedly does it.
GG sunstitutes God for scientific explanation of events not understood
by science.
In the activity under discussion here God employs part of nature not
yet explained by science, but assumed to be within the realm of future
scientific understanding.
This sounds about right.
There is none.
However, my original argument has nothing to do
with any particular holy scripture.
We got sidetracked because that hamster guy pitched a fit
over the idea, the very idea, that certain natural processes
might be available for use by God in lieu of miracles.
I don’t know what you are getting at here, but I suspect it’s nothing.
Of course, Truth should be the top priority in any thing IMHO, but some people seem to need a crutch and religion seems to fit that for them. Some do not want the truth;like a person that doesn’t want to know their spouse is cheating on them, or their child is acting up. All people are different, with different goals. They choose and some have chosen in the past to believe that God spoke to a certain person and they chose to believe that person was telling the truth. They seem to have the need to believe and use it as a medication for helping them get through a tough time in their lives. Then there are some who use it to control others, or think they are better because of their own personal belief system.
There are many who do not seem to need to question their faith and do not care what others believe, then there are some, who believe everyone should believe as they do.The radicals and extremists try to force others to accept their beliefs, I think because of fear that they may be wrong and need to cling to it. Then there are others who have their faith and just accept it, and others, wthout trying to push their beliefs on others, just live their beliefs and lead a good life.
As I stated once before, there is no one who can prove the existence of God or 'A" god, one can believe what they were taught ,read, or thought, but that is not evidence for God, it is just a person’s belief.One must first define what the word God means. There is no evidence for God speaking to any human, or asking that human to write or teach anything about it! They just accept the word of the particular person!
No, I “pitched a fit” because it’s clear that you don’t understand the science you’re using in your arguments.
The Copenhagen interpretation does not imply that the early universe required an observer to exist.
And the hypothetical curled up dimensions of string theory don’t provide any special powers that God could use to work miracles.
You can take this to the bank: Eugene Wigner’s interpretation
of QM is not standard, orthodox Copenhagen.
I may be on less firm ground by saying that Wigner implied the
early universe required an observer to exist, but the citations
I gave seem to me to suggest exactly that.
Now, I think you would do better to advance your argument by
providing citations of your own, and cutting back on the tantrums.
According to one PhD they might do exactly that.