Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Over at WEIT, reader Ben Goren asks: “Why doesn’t Jesus call 911?”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over at Why Evolution Is True, New Atheist Professor Jerry Coyne has posted a letter he received from one of his regular readers, Ben Goren, regarding a major theological flaw which (he claims) undermines not only Christianity, but any religion that worships a God (or gods) who is both omniscient and good: why doesn’t such a being (or beings) assist the police, firefighters and ambulance workers by calling 911 whenever someone is in danger? Goren writes:

Imagine you find yourself in one of any number of calamitous situations — somebody you’re with clutches her chest in pain and falls to the floor; you hear, coming from the far end of a dark alley, the voice of a frightened old man crying for help; a tree falls as you’re driving down a lonely road, missing you but smashing the car following you.

In all such cases, the very first thing you — or anybody else — would do is call 9-1-1…

Now, imagine that it’s not just a single incident you observed and yet stood silently by, but every such case everywhere. Never mind the fact that you’d be a pervert for looking in everybody’s bedroom windows, but to look in a bedroom window, see a lit cigarette fall from sleepy fingers and catch the curtains on fire and then not call 9-1-1 to get the firefighters on the scene before the baby in the crib burns to death in uncomprehending screaming agony, well, that would go unimaginably far beyond mere perversion and move solidly into the worst brand of criminal psychopathy…

And that, at last, brings us to the question that nobody from any religion can satisfactorily answer — at least, not if at least one of its gods (however many there are) has enough awareness and ability to answer the simplest of prayers — or, for that matter, merely has a cellphone and the compassionate instincts of even a young child.

Why doesn’t Jesus ever call 9-1-1?

Goren is not impressed with theologians who respond by making “obfuscatory excuses” and by raising “obscure questions of ‘freedom of the will’ or placing the blame on an ancient ancestral maternal progenitor who procured culinary counseling from a speaking serpent.” Still less is he impressed by the claim that God dispenses justice in the hereafter – “as if post-mortem divine retribution is of any help to the person bleeding out by the side of the road after running into a falling tree, or of any comfort to the umpteenth victim of a serial criminal who enjoys continued success despite the desperate efforts of investigators hoping for a lead or even the slightest hint of a clue.”

Goren is particularly incensed at crimes committed by religious leaders against innocent members of their own flock – for instance, crimes such as child abuse. Goren expresses his astonishment at the fact that “not once in all of history has any deity ever alerted any civil authority to the misdeeds of one of its official representatives.” Crimes such as clerical child abuse, which are committed by God’s “official representatives,” would surely warrant a Divine telephone call to emergency assistance, argues Goren.

In this short post, I’m not going to put forward an answer to Ben Goren’s question: why doesn’t Jesus (or God) call 911? Instead, I’d like to identify a few background assumptions that Goren makes, in his argument. Remember that if even one of these assumptions turns put to be incorrect, then Goren’s argument collapses:

(i) the assumption that God’s responsibility to assist innocent human beings who are in distress is the same as (if not greater than) that of a passerby who happens to see them in distress and who hears their cries for help;

(ii) the assumption that, if God is responsible for alerting 9-1-1 whenever innocent people are in distress, He is directly responsible, and that He cannot delegate this responsibility to some lesser intelligence, such as an angel;

(iii) the assumption that God has no higher obligations towards the human race as a whole, which might conflict with, and over-ride, His obligation to assist individuals in distress;

(iv) the assumption that there are no “privileged members” of the human race who have the prerogative of deciding, on behalf of humanity as a whole, whether (and to what degree) God should offer assistance to individuals in distress who call upon his name for help;

(v) the assumption that anyone – in particular, anyone on 911 – would be capable of hearing the voice of God, if He wanted to leave an important message for them.

Finally, here are a few brief comments of mine regarding these “background assumptions” that Goren makes:

(i) God is not a mere passerby, but the very Author of our being. On the one hand, this fact increases His obligation towards individuals in distress: since He is all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful, God is obliged to dispense perfect justice. But on the other hand, the fact that God maintains everyone – good and bad alike – in existence may also prevent Him from dispensing justice now. (Think of the parable of the wheat and the tares.) Goren has not explained why a supernatural Deity with perfect knowledge, love and power, would be obliged to help each suffering individual right away. As far as I can tell, the only obligation that God has towards suffering individuals here and now is the obligation not to allow them to suffer irreparable harm. However, we should always bear in mind that what appears to be “irreparable damage” to us, may not appear so to God;

(ii) if God has delegated the responsibility for alerting 9-1-1 whenever innocent people are in distress to some angel (or some other super-human intelligence), then we have to consider the possibility that this intelligence – call it Lucifer if you like – has “gone rogue” and is working to sabotage God’s original plan;

(iii) if God’s always alerting 9-1-1 whenever someone is in distress would interfere with the moral development of the human race as a whole (e.g. by making them apathetic about assisting crime victims, leading to a hardening of people’s hearts towards suffering individuals), then it is at least arguable that God’s obligation not to hinder the moral development of the human race as a whole would over-ride His obligation to help those individuals who are in distress;

(iv) it is entirely possible that God, after revealing His existence to the first human beings at the dawn of human history, then asked them, as representatives of the human race as a whole, how much Divine assistance they would like to receive in the future. And it is entirely possible that these “privileged” human beings opted for little or no Divine intervention, thinking that it would give them more personal freedom and enable them to escape from the suffocating embrace (as they saw it) of a Deity Who loved them too much. It’s also entirely possible that God may have promised to comply with their decision, which would “tie His hands” until the end of human history, insofar as He cannot break a promise;

(v) finally, it may turn out to be the case that our ability to hear a message from God depends on our spiritual condition, and that bad or spiritually lukewarm people are simply incapable of hearing detailed 911 messages from the Almighty, due to their poor relationship with God. In that case, it would be our fault, not God’s, that we don’t receive 911 calls from Him, about individuals in distress.

Well, that’s about all I want to say, in response to Ben Goren’s question. The ball is now in his court.

Meanwhile, what do readers think?

Comments
Ben Goren, Thank you for your post. In my previous comment, I pointed out that sarcasm is no substitute for logic. I'd like to add that rhetoric and bombast are no substitute are no substitute for logic, either. If you have a point to make, you don't need to shout. We can hear you. In answer to your question, obviously I would call 9-1-1 if I believed, or even suspected on reasonable grounds, that a priest (or any other individual) was going to molest some child. You then ask: "Why should it not be even more horrific still that Jesus himself, whom we are to believe sees all and has far more than enough ability to place a simple phone call," doesn't call 9-1-1? "Why," you ask, "should that not absolutely repulse and horrify all morally competent humans?" Not so fast. You still haven't explained why a supernatural Deity with perfect knowledge, love and power, would be obliged to help each suffering individual right now. Nor have you explained why the obligations of a Deity are the same as those of a human passerby. As I pointed out above, the only obligation that we can be absolutely certain that an omnibenevolent Deity has towards suffering individuals is the obligation not to allow them to suffer irreparable harm. With regard to Adam and Eve, you ask: "What sort of insane psychopath carries out a grudge on the hundreds-of-times-removed-great-grandchildren of somebody whose crime was eating a piece of fruit?" Quick answer: God carries no grudge. I believe it was Adam who demanded that the human race be left alone, and that God refrain from "butting in" all the time with danger warnings, whenever something bad was about to happen. Adam saw that as interference, and viewed God as an interfering Cosmic Nanny. Adam wanted complete autonomy. He demanded that the human race be left alone to make its own mistakes, even if this entailed lots of suffering for us all. God reluctantly complied with his request. You might ask why God has bound the whole human race by Adam's fateful decision, when some people might have preferred to have a "Cosmic Nanny." (After all, why not?) But if you think about it for a little while, you'll see why. You could hardly have a situation where half of humanity received regular updates from On High about approaching earthquakes, typhoons, and terrorist plots, while the other half was kept in the dark. That wouldn't be fair, either. As a result of Adam's fateful decision, it had to be "lights out" for everyone. That's what the doctrine of the Fall is all about. Christians believe, however, that God has not left the human race in the lurch. But the triumph over evil will not happen overnight. Ever since Calvary, we have known that God's victory is a fore-ordained conclusion, but we do not know when history will come to a close.vjtorley
September 13, 2015
September
09
Sep
13
13
2015
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT
Even I would agree that God is eventually bound to cut short the suffering innocent human beings who are in distress, and that He would be morally depraved if He were to allow them to suffer forever.
Even that standard would be considered horrific if applied to an human. I'll ask you the question. How many children would you witness a priest rape before you saw fit to call 9-1-1? How many rapes must a single child under your care suffer before you relented and called 9-1-1? Would I not be correct in identifying you as morally depraved if that number were greater than one? Imagine now you're the priest's superior -- bishop if Catholic; substitute your denomination's own hierarchy if not. Or cardinal, or pope. If the pope witnessed a priest rape a child and failed to alert the local police, would that not be even more horrific than a cardinal who failed to do so? So, again: why should it not be even more horrific still that Jesus himself, whom we are to believe sees all and has far more than enough ability to place a simple phone call...why should not his active complicity in not merely enabling but conspiring to perpetrate serial child rape -- why should that not absolutely repulse and horrify all morally competent humans?
While each of us has a guardian angel who is good, the boss of the show, at least on planet Earth, is still the Devil.
Then the Devil has demonstrated that Jesus, far from being all-powerful, is utterly impotent. Imagine if Obama's daughters were kidnapped by terrorists; would he not throw the entire might and force of the American military at the kidnappers in an effort to free them? How long would he make his daughters suffer in order to give the terrorists the opportunity to exercise their free will and come clean? Yet Jesus, in his fight to liberate us from the Devil, can do more than make cameo appearances on burnt bread and the hindquarters of a dog?
You mock such a Deity as being unable to walk and chew gum at the same time. But it isn’t a matter of simply juggling responsibilities; if the responsibilities are on different levels, then higher-level ones could over-ride lower-level ones.
Again, you're the one who, on the one hand, claims that Jesus's power is limitless -- and then, with every other breath, desperately assures us that Jesus is completely powerless and incompetent. Utterly incompetent! Even the lowliest of Greek Muses would have been able to spare Earth the Holocaust, by simply inspiring Hitler to fulfill his dreams of becoming a great artist. And, indeed, rather than somehow diminish his "free will," his will would have been expanded and empowered. Yet Jesus was unable to do something even so trivial...and so millions had to die, just so that Hitler could take out his frustrations on them? That's what you expect of all-powerful infinite compassion?
I was referring to our first parents, Adam and Eve.
Never mind that they never existed, that they're fictional characters from a fourth-rate faery tale about an enchanted garden with talking animals and an angry wizard. Even according to your mythology, that was hundreds of generations ago. What sort of insane psychopath carries out a grudge on the hundreds-of-times-removed-great-grandchildren of somebody whose crime was eating a piece of fruit? Would you think it just were I to dig up all the crimes your own parents ever committed and sentence you to that much jail and fines? Your grandparents? But, apparently, it's perfectly fine if it's your imaginary great...great-grandparents.
The fact that some individuals have claimed to hear the voice of God does not imply that most or all individuals are in fact capable of doing so.
At this point, I need to ask you to stop and ask yourself why you worship such a blitheringly incompetent god. Every single challenge I've offered of you, you've replied by assuring us that it's far too difficult for your god to even think of addressing. Here, even: your god can't get get an official Twitter account, let alone hold the occasional press conference? And is instead reduced to competing with all the other auditory hallucinations schizophrenics suffer? This is one of the things that most amazes and frustrates me: the naked hypocrisy of the pious -- that, from the one side of the mouth, we are told of the limitless power and glory of the gods; from the other, even the most trivial task is utterly beyond imagination for the gods. How can you believe that Jesus had the power to physically manifest, has the power to hear and answer prayers, loves us all as his own children...and yet sits idly by, ignoring the desperate pleas of help from actual children actually being actually tortured at the actual hands of his actual official representatives? ...and, of course, the other thing that amazes me is that, not only is none of what I've written any sort of new revelation or observation, but just another recapitulation of what Epicurus himself wrote centuries before Mark wrote an Euhemeric biography for the ancient Jewish demigod of Zechariah 6.... Cheers, b&Ben Goren
September 13, 2015
September
09
Sep
13
13
2015
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
Ben Goren, I see that you have deigned to grace us with your presence. I should inform you at the outset that for people who contribute to this forum, sarcasm is no substitute for logic. I questioned your implicit assumption that God’s responsibility to assist innocent human beings who are in distress is the same as (if not greater than) that of a passerby who happens to see them in distress and who hears their cries for help, and you attributed to me the callous view that God (or gods, as you put it) "are to be held not to an (sic) higher standard, but no standard whatsoever." Sorry, but that does not follow. Even I would agree that God is eventually bound to cut short the suffering innocent human beings who are in distress, and that He would be morally depraved if He were to allow them to suffer forever. I also criticized your assumption that God cannot delegate this responsibility to some lesser intelligence, such as an angel, and you responded by asking why no angel has ever called 9-1-1. Here's your answer, from a Christian perspective: the angel in charge of this planet, a.k.a. the Prince of this world, is called Lucifer. We know him as Satan. While each of us has a guardian angel who is good, the boss of the show, at least on planet Earth, is still the Devil. If you want to understand where I'm coming from, I suggest you read C.S. Lewis' Out of the Silent Planet. I also drew attention to your assumption that the assumption that God has no higher obligations towards the human race as a whole, which might conflict with, and over-ride, His obligation to assist individuals in distress. You mock such a Deity as being unable to walk and chew gum at the same time. But it isn't a matter of simply juggling responsibilities; if the responsibilities are on different levels, then higher-level ones could over-ride lower-level ones. By the way, the “privileged members” of the human race who have the prerogative of deciding, on behalf of humanity as a whole, whether (and to what degree) God should offer assistance to individuals in distress who call upon his name for help, are not priests. I was referring to our first parents, Adam and Eve. Finally, the possibility that perhaps no-one on 911 would be capable of hearing the voice of God, even if He wanted to leave an important message for them, should not be overlooked. The fact that some individuals have claimed to hear the voice of God does not imply that most or all individuals are in fact capable of doing so.vjtorley
September 13, 2015
September
09
Sep
13
13
2015
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT
Ben - Jerry Coyne's groupie You atheists used to be amusing but now you are just creepy to me. It's good that there are people on UD who have patience for you.Eugen
September 13, 2015
September
09
Sep
13
13
2015
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
Ben Goren, we live in a Yin-Yang reality. There is no such thing as pleasure without pain, happiness without suffering. We are designed with both pain and pleasure sensors for that reason. God could certainly intervene to prevent all the nasty things that happen on earth, even to prevent little kids from falling on their tricycles. But that would not be reality. We would be living a lie. The brain adapts to its environment precisely because we have both appetitive and aversive behaviors. IMO, whoever is in charge knows that nobody is allowed into their company without going through the same crap that they went through. We must be initiated into both Yin and Yang. There is no escaping it.Mapou
September 13, 2015
September
09
Sep
13
13
2015
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
And if we are constantly bailed out then what was accomplished?
Who wrote anything about, "constantly"? I'd say that, after a priest has run out of appendages to count the number of children he's raped, it's high past time Jesus dropped a dime on him, don't you? Or maybe you don't think Jesus should alert the authorities until after he's raped an hundred children? More? How many children does a priest have to rape before it's time for Jesus to finally decide that enough is enough and call 9-1-1? No -- wait. Don't answer that. I've got a better question for you. How many times would you have to witness a priest raping a child before you would call 9-1-1? Ten? Twenty? Or...just one? Hmpf. Fancy that. A Christian who demonstrates infinitely higher moral standards and more compassion and dignity than Jesus.
Those are nasty human habits.
Walking...a nasty habit? Seriously? And, last I checked, the American Dental Association recommended chewing gum for dental hygiene. I never cared for gum...but, again? Clean teeth is a nasty habit? ...and you wonder why Christians have a reputation for...well...backwardness...?
How do you know that no angel ever called 9-1-1? How do you know an angel never intervened?
Oh, that's trivial. You just proved it for me. First, had any ever done that, you'd have been the first to offer the evidence. Second...they're clearly all too busy helping sports megamillionaires score more points and drunks find their car keys to bother calling 9-1-1 for babies whose houses are on fire. But, then again, I suppose Jesus thinks it's more important that the baby and its parents and the little dog, too, all die an agonizing death so you yourself can learn some vague lesson about lovingkindness or some such. Clearly got his priorities straight, that Jesus. All that pain and death and misery is such a small pay for your righteous self satisfaction, wouldn't you agree? b&Ben Goren
September 13, 2015
September
09
Sep
13
13
2015
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
Here I thought that the gods were supposed to be paragons of virtue, the ultimate exemplars of morality.
And if we are constantly bailed out then what was accomplished?
You mean the omnipotent almighty all-powerful can’t even walk and chew gum at the same time?
Those are nasty human habits.
So, why, then, has no angel ever called 9-1-1?
How do you know that no angel ever called 9-1-1? How do you know an angel never intervened? As the saying goes... with atheists like you who needs clowns?Virgil Cain
September 13, 2015
September
09
Sep
13
13
2015
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
the assumption that God’s responsibility to assist innocent human beings who are in distress is the same as (if not greater than) that of a passerby who happens to see them in distress and who hears their cries for help;
Silly me. Here I thought that the gods were supposed to be paragons of virtue, the ultimate exemplars of morality. And, yet, here you are complaining that they are to be held not to an higher standard, but no standard whatsoever.
the assumption that, if God is responsible for alerting 9-1-1 whenever innocent people are in distress, He is directly responsible, and that He cannot delegate this responsibility to some lesser intelligence, such as an angel;
Okay; I'll bite. So, why, then, has no angel ever called 9-1-1?
the assumption that God has no higher obligations towards the human race as a whole, which might conflict with, and over-ride, His obligation to assist individuals in distress;
You mean the omnipotent almighty all-powerful can't even walk and chew gum at the same time?
the assumption that there are no “privileged members” of the human race who have the prerogative of deciding, on behalf of humanity as a whole, whether (and to what degree) God should offer assistance to individuals in distress who call upon his name for help;
Ah, yes. The priests. The mere mortals who invented the gods and hold ultimate power over the gods, commanding the gods to speak on their behalf. Nasty lot, the priests.
the assumption that anyone – in particular, anyone on 911 – would be capable of hearing the voice of God, if He wanted to leave an important message for them.
Wait -- I'm confused. If nobody realizes that the gods are speaking to them, let alone has a clue what they're saying...where do all these scriptures and prophesies and revelations come from, again...? As the saying goes...with enemas like these, who needs fronds? Cheers, b&Ben Goren
September 13, 2015
September
09
Sep
13
13
2015
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
The same question could be ask in regards to the early detection of diseases. For example, some kinds of cancer has a over 90% rate of completely being cured if detected early enough. Why doesn't God inform patience or doctors when the first cancerous cells are present? Again, in the future, we will have clouds of nano-machines in our bodies constantly monitoring for the early onset of diseases, which will report their presences and possibly even follow up with in place treatment. Would that make us less sensitive to suffering? I don't see how. In fact, wouldn't it be immoral of us to *not* provide such a system to people if requested?Popperian
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
BA77, You are off the rails, IMO. That's OK. Peace out.mike1962
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
Of supplemental note: Although I don't know what you think about NDEs mike1962, there is a 'unexpected' correspondence in NDE testimonies to the 'tunnel' and 'eternal' attribute that is 'scientifically' found for the speed of light:
“The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.” Richard Swenson – More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12
Please note, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.).
Seeing Relativity – Approaching The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4
And, in stark contrast to multiverse (and Darwinian) claims from atheists, for which we have no direct observational evidence, we have actual observational evidence from Near Death Experience testimonies of eternity and also of people going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension,,,
'Earthly time has no meaning in the spirit realm. There is no concept of before or after. Everything - past, present, future - exists simultaneously.' - Kimberly Clark Sharp - NDE Experiencer 'There is no way to tell whether minutes, hours or years go by. Existence is the only reality and it is inseparable from the eternal now.' - John Star - NDE Experiencer ‘In the ‘spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it’s going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.’ In The Presence Of Almighty God – The NDE of Mickey Robinson – video (27:45 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s66DchGhhD0 “I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.” Barbara Springer – Near Death Experience – The Tunnel – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2jLeoAcMI Ask the Experts: What Is a Near-Death Experience (NDE)? - article with video Excerpt: "Very often as they're moving through the tunnel, there's a very bright mystical light ... not like a light we're used to in our earthly lives. People call this mystical light, brilliant like a million times a million suns..." - Jeffrey Long M.D. - has studied NDE's extensively http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/beyondbelief/experts-death-experience/story?id=14221154#.T_gydvW8jbI "Regardless, it is impossible for me to adequately describe what I saw and felt. When I try to recount my experiences now, the description feels very pale. I feel as though I'm trying to describe a three-dimensional experience while living in a two-dimensional world. The appropriate words, descriptions and concepts don't even exist in our current language. I have subsequently read the accounts of other people's near-death experiences and their portrayals of heaven and I able to see the same limitations in their descriptions and vocabulary that I see in my own." Mary C. Neal, MD - To Heaven And Back pg. 71
This following video interview of a Harvard Neurosurgeon, who had a Near Death Experience (NDE), is very interesting. His NDE was rather unique from typical NDEs in that he had completely lost brain wave function for 7 days while the rest of his body was on life support. As such he had what can be termed a ‘pure consciousness’ NDE that was dramatically different from the ‘typical’ Judeo-Christian NDEs of going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension, seeing departed relatives, and having a life review. His NDE featured his ‘consciousness’ going outside the confines of space/time, matter/energy altogether to experience ‘non-locally’ what he termed ‘the Core’, i.e to experience God. It is also interesting to note that he retained a ‘finite sense of self-identity’, as Theism would hold, and did not blend into the infinite consciousness/omniscience of God, as pantheism would hold.
A Conversation with Near Death Experiencer Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander III, M.D. with Steve Paulson (Interviewer) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ASWnPJSf7o
bornagain77
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
mike1962, so you want me to accept your simplistic reasoning for a static "frozen in time" state being equivalent to the highest timeless state that God exists in? Your simplistic 'frozen in time' position was already gone over in my post on special relativity: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/over-at-weit-reader-ben-goren-asks-why-doesnt-jesus-call-911/#comment-579007 Moreover, besides ignoring that post, you also presented no empirical evidence to counter the empirical evidence that I presented linking quantum wave collapse to Aquinas's 'unmoved mover' argument. i.e. Exactly how does a photon get from point a to point b? Although modern science has no clue, the 'unmoved mover' answers that question VERY WELL. You may not personally like the fact that Aquinas is verified in his 'unmoved mover' argument, but that does not negate the fact that modern science has verified the basic premise of his argumentation.
“The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment.” Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way
It is certainly not me playing word games, it is you refusing to think outside your temporal 'flatland' box, and to follow the evidence where it leads, and recognize the 'empirical' reality of the higher 'eternal', and highest transcendent (timeless), dimensions above this one.
Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ – video (6:00 minute mark) https://youtu.be/jHnRqhnkyGs?t=364 Approaching The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4 Dr. Quantum in Flatland – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=takn4FPkId4
bornagain77
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Ba77, Perhaps you should consider this: If God does not undergo state change, than the very idea that "God created the heavens and the earth" is nonsense. Because here we have a clear, unequivicol statement that God is in the state where he is not in relation to his creation (since it doesn't exist yet), contrasted with another state where God is in relation to his creation. The act of creation is a state change with his respect to God's creation. This is fundamental, and no amount sophistry and irrational word play will change the clear and basic statement. If you cannot accept that, we have nothing to discuss. Aquinas was trying to have the Bible's God and Plato's God at the same time. It doesn't work. I have no reason to accept Plato's God. It makes no sense. I hope you can see that.mike1962
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
mike1962, well I consider the fact that Aquinas's argument, (reduction of potency to act), meshes perfectly with collapse of the quantum waveform, to be VERY good evidence that his 'unmoved mover' argument is indeed correct. It simply is uncanny how he was, simply through rigid reasoning, and centuries before it was even scientifically known about, able to deduce the basics of quantum waveform collapse. You may reject the evidence and his argument for the 'unmoved mover', but it is certainly not a 'fact not in evidence' as you claim. i.e. I hold you to be wrong not Aquinas. And I will continue to hold you to be wrong in your opinion until you provide the proper empirical evidence that counters what I have thus far presented (i.e. namely double slit & QED)bornagain77
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Mapou -
It’s a stupid God who is above simple logic.
Have you ever read Matthew 22. It is my favorite chapter of the Bible from a purely intellectual logic point of view. It shows how foolish the brightest intellectuals of the day fare against the eternal Logos. Each group thought they had caught Jesus in a trap of inescapable "simple logic" by which they could "...entangle him in his talk." (Matt. 22:15 KJV) _________________ Pharisees - By simple logic - Jesus either has to support taxation ( at which point He will lose his followers ) or not support taxation ( at which point the state will arrest him ). Jesus - "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto Got the things that are God's". He wipes out their supposed trap with a clear answer. (Matt. 22:21 KJV) ______________ Saducees - By simple logic - We know that there can not be a real physical resurrection because it would lead to impossible eternal contradictions in the case of brothers who needed to marry a woman to "...raise up seed unto their brother." (Matt. 22:24 KJV) Jesus - "Ye do err...For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." There supposed simple logic which demonstrated the impossibility of the resurrection was vanquished by a simple understanding of the nature of the resurrection state.(Matt. 22:29-30 KJV) _______________ A lawyer - By simple logic. I know the most important law is from Deuteronomy part of which declares that '...The Lord out God is one Lord.' Jesus can't affirm this commandment and still claim divinity.(Deut. 6:4 KJV) Jesus - "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy should and with all thy mind." He just simply answers the question as to how to satisfy the command - he will deal with the issue of the relationship of the Son to the Father with a question of His own. ______ Jesus - "...How then doth David in the spirit call him[The Son of David] Lord..If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?"( Matt 22:43-45 KJV) He gives them a mystery which they could not answer at all, but any modern Christian will recognize as easily answered by the the Incarnation. ________ I'm afraid I don't know this "...stupid God who is above simple logic." I know a God of tremendous Love and Knowledge who has clearly revealed His Wisdom in His word. I know the God who will "...destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." and "...by the foolishness of preaching...save them that believe."( I Cor. 1:19, 21 KJV) God's ways have always been a mystery to those who limit themselves to the prevailing winds of man's wisdom in order to shield themselves from truly believing Him. His ways have always been discernible to those who put God's word first, and then wait for the Wisdom of God to see the mighty and perfect and glorious way that God has revealed Himself as Omnipotent Judge and Righteous Savior. This is the God I know. Who is your God?JDH
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
BA77: we undergo ‘state changes’, God, in his ‘highest heaven’, does not. Fact not in evidence. Not a big fan of Aquinas. I think he was wrong.mike1962
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
mike1962, we undergo 'state changes', God, in his 'highest heaven', does not.
"What is the immutability of God?" Answer: The immutability of God (His quality of not changing) is clearly taught throughout Scripture. For example, in Malachi 3:6 God affirms, "I the Lord do not change." (See also Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Isaiah 46:9-11; and Ezekiel 24:14.) James 1:17 also teaches the immutability of God: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning.” http://www.gotquestions.org/immutability-God.html
Moreover, as Aquinas established centuries ago, we are ultimately dependent on the 'unmoved mover', God, for us to have 'state changes', i.e. for us to have movement.
Aquinas’ First Way 1) Change in nature is elevation of potency to act. 2) Potency cannot actualize itself, because it does not exist actually. 3) Potency must be actualized by another, which is itself in act. 4) Essentially ordered series of causes (elevations of potency to act) exist in nature. 5) An essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act cannot be in infinite regress, because the series must be actualized by something that is itself in act without the need for elevation from potency. 6) The ground of an essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act must be pure act with respect to the casual series. 7) This Pure Act– Prime Mover– is what we call God. http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/08/aquinas-first-way.html Aquinas’ First Way – (The First Mover – Unmoved Mover) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpw0_w27As
Or to put it much more simply:
"The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment." Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html
Moreover, non local, i.e. beyond space and time, quantum actions provide solid empirical support for the 'unmoved mover' argument.
Stephen Hawking: "Philosophy Is Dead" - Michael Egnor - August 3, 2015 Excerpt: The metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas is far and away the most successful framework on which to understand modern science, especially quantum mechanics. Heisenberg knew this (Link on site). Aristotle 2,300 years ago described the basics of collapse of the quantum waveform (reduction of potency to act),,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/stephen_hawking_3098261.html
And in confirmation of this ancient ‘unmoved mover’ argument, in the following video Anton Zeilinger, whose group is arguably the best group of experimentalists in quantum physics today, ‘tries’ to explain the double slit experiment to Morgan Freeman:
Quantum Mechanics - Double Slit Experiment. Is anything real? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0
Anton Zeilinger makes this rather startling statement in the preceding video that meshes perfectly with the ‘first mover argument’:
"The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable." Anton Zeilinger
If that was not enough to get his point across, at the 4:12 minute mark in this following video,,,
Prof Anton Zeilinger Shows the Double-slit Experiment - video http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgt69p_prof-anton-zeilinger-shows-the-double-slit-experiment_tech
Professor Zeilinger states,,,
"We know what the particle is doing at the source when it is created. We know what it is doing at the detector when it is registered. But we do not know what it is doing in-between." Anton Zeilinger
And if that was not enough to get the 'unmoved mover' point across, in Quantum Electrodynamics, arguably the most stringently, and accurately, tested theory in science today, we have these following comments
Quantum Electrodynamics - Introduction The key components of Feynman's presentation of QED are three basic actions.[1]:85 *A photon goes from one place and time to another place and time. *An electron goes from one place and time to another place and time. *An electron emits or absorbs a photon at a certain place and time. These actions are represented in a form of visual shorthand by the three basic elements of Feynman diagrams: a wavy line for the photon, a straight line for the electron and a junction of two straight lines and a wavy one for a vertex representing emission or absorption of a photon by an electron. These can all be seen in the adjacent diagram. It is important not to over-interpret these diagrams. Nothing is implied about how a particle gets from one point to another. The diagrams do not imply that the particles are moving in straight or curved lines. They do not imply that the particles are moving with fixed speeds. The fact that the photon is often represented, by convention, by a wavy line and not a straight one does not imply that it is thought that it is more wavelike than is an electron. The images are just symbols to represent the actions above: photons and electrons do, somehow, move from point to point and electrons, somehow, emit and absorb photons. We do not know how these things happen, but the theory tells us about the probabilities of these things happening. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics#Introduction
Verse:
Acts 17:28 For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
bornagain77
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Mike1962: At any rate, I’m primarily concerned with the free-will of human consciousness and God’s alleged omniscience with regards to it. I don’t see how you’ve solved that one.
Why is there a problem when we assume that God has an outside-time-perspective and spectator knowledge? We make free decisions in the past, now and in the future. God watches us make those free decisions in the past,now and the future. Explain the problem, please.Box
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
BA77: As to the fact that there exists a dimension that transcends all conceivable space-time frameworks, that fact is empirically establish by comparing the temporal realm of matter with the eternal realm of light with the transcendent realm of quantum information. I don't agree that these things transcend all conceivable space-time frameworks, and nothing you quoted demonstrates that. They all undergo state changes. Something that undergoes state changes cannot be timeless in an absolute sense. At any rate, I'm primarily concerned with the free-will of human consciousness and God's alleged omniscience with regards to it. I don't see how you've solved that one.mike1962
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Goren has not explained why a supernatural Deity with perfect knowledge, love and power, would be obliged to help each suffering individual right away.
So, if I see someone who I could help, say tomorrow, like a woman who is in an abusive relationship, then I don't need to help them right away?
As far as I can tell, the only obligation that God has towards suffering individuals here and now is the obligation not to allow them to suffer irreparable harm. However, we should always bear in mind that what appears to be “irreparable damage” to us, may not appear so to God;
So, if the abuser doesn't really cause any physical damage that cannot be repaired, I don't have to report it either?
if God has delegated the responsibility for alerting 9-1-1 whenever innocent people are in distress to some angel (or some other super-human intelligence), then we have to consider the possibility that this intelligence – call it Lucifer if you like – has “gone rogue” and is working to sabotage God’s original plan;
God, being infinite in nature doesn't need to delegate anything to anyone since he is supposedly infinite. Reporting someone doesn't leave him with less time to report anyone else or reduce his ability to act in some other capacity. Even then, God would know that lucifer failed to delver the message and could do it himself without reducing his ability to act in some other capacity.
if God’s always alerting 9-1-1 whenever someone is in distress would interfere with the moral development of the human race as a whole (e.g. by making them apathetic about assisting crime victims, leading to a hardening of people’s hearts towards suffering individuals), then it is at least arguable that God’s obligation not to hinder the moral development of the human race as a whole would over-ride His obligation to help those individuals who are in distress;
First, not all 911 cals are necessarily crime related. Take natural disasters, for example. Second, It's unclear how God alerting people when someone in suffering makes other people less empathetic to other peoples suffering. For example, imagine a scenario where each person had a personal digital assistant that could call 911 for them or contained an internal cloud of nano-bots that monitored their health, distress levels, etc. and called 911 automatically within specific parameters, (which seems rather likely at some point in the future.) Would this somehow imply the human race had become apathetic toward human suffering? Are you suggesting we would not be morally obliged to make such systems available for those who would want them to reduce suffering if we could? Again, this is yet anther example of how ID proponents here grossly underestimate the role that knowledge plays, in that it assumes we will not create the necessary knowledge to better solve moral problems than, apparently, God. How do you explain this future disparity?
(iv) it is entirely possible that God, after revealing His existence to the first human beings at the dawn of human history, then asked them, as representatives of the human race as a whole, how much Divine assistance they would like to receive in the future. And it is entirely possible that these “privileged” human beings opted for little or no Divine intervention, thinking that it would give them more personal freedom and enable them to escape from the suffocating embrace (as they saw it) of a Deity Who loved them too much. It’s also entirely possible that God may have promised to comply with their decision, which would “tie His hands” until the end of human history, insofar as He cannot break a promise;
Why would human beings at the beginning of history have the knowledge of what the future will be like and therefore, be considered a good representatives as for how much divine assistance would be desired today? What if those same human beings decided they wanted no assistance and complete separation from God? Would he free to make that promise as well, and be obliged to keep it?
(v) finally, it may turn out to be the case that our ability to hear a message from God depends on our spiritual condition, and that bad or spiritually lukewarm people are simply incapable of hearing detailed 911 messages from the Almighty, due to their poor relationship with God. In that case, it would be our fault, not God’s, that we don’t receive 911 calls from Him, about individuals in distress.
God could simply hijack a robo-dialer to make the call on his behalf. Or, he could simply cause 911 calls to appear in the call log system with all the necessary details already filed out. These are just different levels of indirection than those used when a person uses a phone to call 911. By acting in this way, any one individual "spiritual condition" would be irrelevant to the event being reported.Popperian
September 8, 2015
September
09
Sep
8
08
2015
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
Again, the very same arguments the OP is appealing to could be used to "justify" the actions of abortionists. For example, in a comment on another thread, I wrote:
...if a women is evil enough to want their child to die, then one could argue that their child’s death would be God’s punishment for her evil. And being raised in such a family, such a child would have just been evil as well. IOW, it’s unclear how you could know that God isn’t just using abortionists as a “surgeon” to “cut out” evil that exceeded some limit that we cannot comprehend.
How can you rule this out, while simultaneously appealing to this supposed inability to know what God is or is not doing, want's or does not want, etc.?Popperian
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
Comment deleted by author. Back to the beach with you!Mung
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
Comment deleted by author.Upright BiPed
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
JDH:
This comment is directed to all of you who are arrogant enough to believe to have God caught in an obvious contradiction over free will vs. omniscience.
Only the God you created, JDH. Only the God your created in your own mind. It's a stupid God who is above simple logic. My God suffers from no such handicap. Your God is impotent because he cannot change his mind. My God is powerful and can change his mind anytime. Genesis teaches me that God regretted creating mankind. Not very impressive if he knew everything in advance. You fundamentalist Christians can continue to play with your little impotent and imagined God all you want but you cannot call yourselves Christians. You make a mockery of God.Mapou
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
1. When any time bound intelligent agent makes a decision, the Lord is there. If some other directive of God depends upon the agent making a different decision, he just puts every particle in the universe back to the time before the decision and again observes. He repeats this process until the agent makes the decision He wants.
That also explains why Hitler's "National Judaism day" and Stalin's on-going "Kittens are cute" league were replaced by more God-friendly events. Free will according to JDH: G) Do you you take sugar Y) No thanks G) No that is not the correct answer. Deleted. Now, do you take sugar? Y) No G) No that is not the correct answer. Deleted. Now, do you take sugar? Y) No, I have a medical condition, I must avoid sugar. G) No that is not the correct answer. Deleted. Now, do you take sugar? Y) No, I have a medical condition, I must avoid sugar. G) No that is not the correct answer. Deleted. Now, do you take sugar? Y) (High energy particle enters brain). Half past two, er, three, er sorry where was I? G) Ok three sugars it is then.steveh
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
This comment is directed to all of you who are arrogant enough to believe to have God caught in an obvious contradiction over free will vs. omniscience. You claim it is not possible for both to exist. So I don't have to know how God has both, all I have to show is one method by which the infinite God can have both. 1. When any time bound intelligent agent makes a decision, the Lord is there. If some other directive of God depends upon the agent making a different decision, he just puts every particle in the universe back to the time before the decision and again observes. He repeats this process until the agent makes the decision He wants. I am no way suggesting that this has any comport with reality, as I think this is much too complicated way. I bet God has a much simpler algorithm. I can't see it, being the time-bound agent that I am. BUT … any of you who read this, and still go on believing that you have discovered this obvious truth that God can't both be omniscient and have granted His subjects free will are willingly ignorant. You choose to disbelieve in spite of the evidence, not because of it.JDH
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Seversky, Suppose that George Washington made a perfectly free choice when he retired from office after two terms. That decision is part of the past — the decision is fixed. But does the fact that George's decision is fixed change the fact that it is a decision determined by free will? His decision was an act of free will and free will determined his decision. When we study American history we can "see" George Washington make a free decision.
Seversky: That story alone, if true, is strong evidence that God knows the future, not just all the possible futures that might radiate from a particular present but the actual future realized from all those possibilities. This argues that the future must already exist in order to be known and in turn negates the possibility of absolute free will.
It doesn't follow. A timeless God can watch us make free decisions in the past, present and future. Similarly we can "watch" George Washington make free decisions. GW's decision isn't any less free because it "already exists".Box
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Actually mike1962, you are making some fairly broad claims for time for which you simply have no empirical support (other than in your imagination). As to the fact that there exists a dimension that transcends all conceivable space-time frameworks, that fact is empirically establish by comparing the temporal realm of matter with the eternal realm of light with the transcendent realm of quantum information. Both special relativity and general relativity reveal a higher dimensional ‘eternal framework’:
“I’ve just developed a new theory of eternity.” Albert Einstein – The Einstein Factor – Reader’s Digest – 2005 “The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.” Richard Swenson – More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12
To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.
Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ – video (6:00 minute mark) https://youtu.be/jHnRqhnkyGs?t=364
This higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is also warranted, by logic, because light is not ‘frozen within time’, i.e. light appears to move to us in our temporal framework of time, yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. The only way this is possible is if light is indeed of a higher dimensional value of time than our temporal time is otherwise light would simply be ‘frozen in time’ to our temporal frame of reference. Another line of evidence that supports the inference that ‘tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday’, at the ‘eternal’ speed of light, is visualizing what would happen if a hypothetical observer were to approach the speed of light. Please note, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.).
Approaching The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4
Of related interest, the "Flatland" video, which clearly illustrates this principle of higher dimensions, is on the Vienna Quantum Science Group's outreach page, (i.e. Anton Zeilinger's home group):
Vienna Group Video Outreach page http://vcq.quantum.at/outreach/multimedia/page-4.html Dr. Quantum in Flatland - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=takn4FPkId4
Moreover, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, yet, and this is a very big ‘yet’ to take note of; this ‘timeless’ travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time (as quantum entanglement/teleportation is), i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our temporal perspective. Yet, in quantum entanglement/teleportation of information, the ‘time not passing’, i.e. ‘eternal’, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but is also ‘instantaneously’ achieved in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of quantum information is instantaneous to both the temporal framework and the eternal speed of light framework, not just in, and to, the speed of light framework. Information entanglement/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us in this temporal framework.
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
Thus ‘pure transcendent information’ (in quantum experiments) is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, ‘instantaneous information’ is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, i.e. highest dimension, can be discerned).
“An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality” Akiane Kramarik – Child Prodigy –
Verse and Music:
Psalm 115:2-3 Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him. Rich Mullins – Creed – music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LR2hFP1yb4
Supplemental notes
God, The Universe, and Everything - Special Relativity and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God Excerpt: Albert Einstein taught us that time and space are related by light. Imagine that you and I hitch a ride on the Star ship Enterprise, traveling at the speed of light. Now remember, at the speed of light time stops. So if we look out the window while traveling at this speed, we would be aware of the past, the present and the future all at once. This bizarre universe which seems absurd to us is the very universe described by quantum physics.,,, The concept that there is something outside the material world becomes even more evident when you consider light. You see light has the ability to behave in a singularly conscious manner. To actually transmit information across the entire universe instantly. Consider this. In 1997 a Geneva researcher created a pair of twin light photons and sent them flying in opposite directions along optical fibers. When one photon hit a mirror it was forced to make a random choice to go one way or the other. Which ever way it went it’s twin photon already seven miles away always instantaneously took the very same option. Instantaneous is the key word here. The reaction of the twin photon was not delayed by the amount of time it takes light to travel seven miles. Other more recent experiments support this finding. In fact, physicists now believe that an entangled twin particle will know what it’s partner is doing and instantaneously mimic it’s actions even if the pair live in separate galaxies billions of light years apart. Since we’ve been told that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, how does one photon on one side of the universe know what the other photon on the other side of the universe is doing? Instantly? - Dwight Nelson http://www.theevidence.org/article/70/programs/archives/the-evidence/episodes/episode-115-god-the-universe-and-everything/guest-information/episode-115-god-the-universe-and-everything-v2 video http://www.theevidence.org/article/441/programs/archives/the-evidence/episodes/episode-115-god-the-universe-and-everything
of note: Not only was our universe brought into being from this highest dimension of God 14 billion years ago, but God also continuously sustains this universe from His highest dimension. In essence, Quantum Mechanics is showing us that God continuously creates the universe, upholding it in its continual being:
Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms - Mind = blown. - FIONA MACDONALD - 1 JUN 2015 Excerpt: "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms "Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!" - Scott Aaronson - MIT associate Professor
bornagain77
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
vjtorley @ 31
Hi Seversky, Thank you for your comments. You write:
God is supposed to be omniscient. That means he already knows the outcome of any experiment we can think of – and that includes how people respond to suffering and evil.
Actually, that only follows if you accept either a predestinationist (Calvinist/Banezian) or Molinist account of free will. (In the latter account, God knows all counterfactuals.) But if you accept a Boethian account of free will, as I do, then it doesn’t follow. On this account, God is timeless, but His knowledge is that of a spectator. So God cannot know the outcome of an experiment involving free creatures (such as ourselves), unless He actually performs it.
Hi Thank you for replying to my comment. It seems to me the problem with the Boethian account is that there is an underlying assumption of a fixed temporal viewpoint You and I and everyone else sees time from the perspective of our own present and it appears we can do no other. We presume this to be true for all people throughout human history. We also presume there is no way to privilege one temporal perspective over any other. For example, George Washington in 1776 would have had some knowledge of his own history and, more generally, that of the world at large, up to that point in time. But, we have no reason to think that his viewpoint is any way more significant than our own today. The only difference between George Washington and ourselves, in this context, is that the 239 years separating us in time was a complete mystery to him but is known in some detail to us. Similarly, we can envisage one of our descendants, 239 years in our future knowing that mysterious future as settled history. This suggests that all times exist simultaneously and that we are somehow moving through fixed history in the way a traveler might cross a fixed landscape. God, on the other hand, is presumed to exist outside our spacetime Universe. He was there before it came into existence and He will still be there, wherever “there” might be, after it is gone. Although He could choose to see time from a particular temporal perspective, such as through the eyes of Jesus, He can also see the whole history of our Universe laid out before him, much as we might see the whole land surface of the Earth from the International Space Station. Do we have any evidence to suggest that God has definite knowledge of the future? Yes, the Bible provides some. For example, we have the story of Christ telling Peter that he would deny knowing Him three times before the following morning. According to the account, He does not tell Peter there is a good chance he will deny knowing Him or there is a 95% probability of denial, He says quite definitely that he will. And, according the the Biblical account, that’s exactly what he does. That story alone, if true, is strong evidence that God knows the future, not just all the possible futures that might radiate from a particular present but the actual future realized from all those possibilities. This argues that the future must already exist in order to be known and in turn negates the possibility of absolute free will.Seversky
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Infinity worship is idolatry. It's the work of the devil. LOL.Mapou
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
1 9 10 11 12 13

Leave a Reply