Meticulous Providence

Ok, show me. Where is the evidence for this? The planets orbit the sun. Our sun orbits the center of the Milky Way. The Milky Way moves in predictable fashion within our local galactic cluster. Our galaxy and others move in predictable fashion and form superclusters. The equations of General Relativity predict all these things (and many other phenomena). There is no “God” term in those equations (I know; I have studied them). The equations of GR predict these phenomena without any need for God.

Maybe something simpler would help. Post me a picture of your “Jacobs Ladder”. What is it made of? How long is it? How much does it weigh? Maybe if you can answer any of these I would take the idea seriously.

The real truth is that the laws of nature function perfectly well without a deity. Even most theists I encounter do not dispute this. Most will concede that the planets move in their orbits the way they do, water molecules arrange themselves into crystalline structures at low temperature, bodies dropped from high places fall, etc., not because God actively moves the planets, water molecules, or falling bodies, but because they are obeying natural laws that God set up in the universe. The only way to avoid deism then, is to postulate that God sometimes intervenes and causes natural laws to be violated. Show me cases of that. Otherwise it is deism or atheism (both are basically equivalent as far as observational evidence is concerned).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob%27s_Ladder


oh good you know science

how to find the exact path of an electron in an orbital?

Ok, you showed me a link to a Wikipedia page that discusses a dream that some goatherder purportedly had several millennia ago. That was not what I asked for. I asked to see a photo of Jacob’s Ladder. You were the one claiming it exists. Barring a photo, like I said before, give me some design specs, weight length, material etc., and a location. Then at least we have something testable. We can go look for the ladder and see for ourselves whether it is really there. We would have objective data we could both agree upon.

Of course I am being a bit facetious; I know Jacobs’s Ladder is not real. Even most theists know it is just a story. But the point is that while you are free to believe whatever you want, you will not convince others without being able to give evidence (and no, a book of stories collected by Bronze Age herders living at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea is not evidence).

And yea, I have a BS in chemistry and work as a chemist, so I do know science. Certainly not everything (nobody does), but more than the average person. To answer what you think is a “gotcha” question, no I cannot give the exact trajectory of an electron as it orbits an atom. That is because the notion of “trajectory” is not one that makes sense when dealing with small systems. It is like watching a vibrating guitar string and asking where exactly on the string the vibration is located. There is no one location on the string where the vibration is located. Similarly, the electron in an atom behaves as a 3D analog to that vibrating string. Both are best described as standing waves. The picture that you have of an electron orbiting a nucleus much like planets orbit the earth is just a misleading model. A 3 dimensional standing wave is a much better picture.

there are pictures on that wikipedia page

if you need evidence then the problem is in your heart not in the physical world

you cannot answer because the exact trajectory of an electron cannot be determined it is probabilistic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

what you perceive as probability is God's sovereign divine will

No, even God cannot locate the electron when it is bound to an atom. The atom doesn’t actually have a specific location. The probability involved is the chance that if we place a detector in a given region of space that we will detect an electron. Probability is just a concept we develop to describe situations where outcomes do not always occur the same way. There is no need to invoke a deity. Do you honestly believe that God directly intervened last night when I was saved from busting out of a tourney by hitting runner runner to make a flush? Why would God reward an atheist in such a manner? Why don’t the most faithful poker players always win the WSOP main event?

And no. Those were not photos of Jacob’s Ladder; they were artwork inspired by the story. Even Jacob himself did not believe it was a literal ladder. It was a freaking DREAM. There is no actual ladder. In Christian theology it generally is a symbol representing the reconciliation brought about by the sacrifice of Jesus. Of course there is no evidence for an actual ladder - nobody, not even the Bible has ever said it exists.

yes God can

He created time and space matter and energy He remembers every subatomic particle that will ever exist for all of time. Amen

So, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, the One who knows the end from the beginning, can't overcome the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Methinks your understanding of God is flawed.

No you are making a category error by talking about the location of an electron within an atom. Saying God cannot locate the electron is analogous to saying he could not draw a four-sided triangle. There simply is no location of the electron, any more than there is a location of a vibration somewhere along a vibrating guitar string. God cannot locate the vibration at a specific point along the guitar string either, simply because the concept does not make sense, not because of any inadequacy attributable to God.

The Heisenberg Principle is actually just a description arising from our tendency to think of the electron as a little tiny particle flying around the atomic nucleus. In reality a standing wave gives a much better description. The notions of wave and particle become blurred in quantum systems — in some situations light behaves as a stream of particles rather than a wave, for example. Similarly electrons behave as particles in some situations and waves in others. The reality is that wave and particle are terms we invented to help us describe nature. At the quantum level, the two seemingly different concepts actually merge. In bound states such as an atom, the wave nature of the electron is simply a better description, and as such, the electron has no single specific location, but is best described by a wave having an amplitude that varies with spatial location.

You missed my point. I am not saying anything about God, but rather about the nature of the electron. The electron in its bound state in an atom has no specific location and does not truly orbit the nucleus.

If you hit a drum with a drum stick, the surface of the drum vibrates, producing a sound. Where exactly on the surface of the drum is that vibration located? Even God cannot answer that question, not because God is limited, but because the question makes no sense. There is no single point on the drum where the vibration is located. Each point on the drum vibrates to a greater or lesser degree. The vibration is a delicalized standing wave on the surface.

You probably were taught something like the electron orbits the nucleus like planets orbit the sun. This is completely incorrect. The electron is actually more like the vibration on the drum. It is a standing wave occupying the space around the nucleus. You can no more point to any one location in that space and say “the electron is here” than you can point to a particular point on the drum and say “the vibration is here.”

How do you know this really? Answer: "Well, I just kind of believe it. I have faith that it is true. I want and need it to be true because it affirms my indoctrination."

And what about all the other religions who, on faith, claim something else?

What follows is an except from an unpublished article written by Russ Manion. (I have his permission to post a portion of his article here.) Manion is the co-founder and moderator of a SoCal philosophy discussion group called Dialogue that began in 1980 and continued until about three years ago when he moved to NorCal.

This is an excerpt from an article he shared at his Dialogue group. It is titled, My Take on "Seeing Through Revelation"* & Why I Am A Christian:

People are theists for same reason they are atheists, it is how they make sense of the world. But theists believe the world makes sense specifically because they believe there actually is an explanation for it. For theists the idea that the world makes sense and the idea that there is an explanation for it, in a very deep sense, are the same idea. In that deep sense theism just is the belief that the world makes sense. Atheists sometimes think that if they can point out a problem with some particular way theism is expressed, that theists should give up theism. But from the theist's point of view, they are being asked to believe that the world does not make sense after all, simply because there is a problem with the way they expressed their theism. Given the choice, theists will generally just rethink the way they expresses [sic] their theism. No theist is tempted to believe in a world he thinks is meaningless. Atheists respond to such challenges in the exact same way. This is all "Seeing Through Revelation" would amount to even if it did not have the problems itemized above [earlier in the article not quoted in this except].

It is this "deep sense" which gets to the heart of why I am a Christian. I am absolutely convinced the world is utterly rational, but that is the oppose of accidental. Christianity answers the deep questions, the hard questions. But I do not believe it just because it answers the questions, but because if it is not the answer, then there are no answers, and there is no sense of the world to be made. My reasons can be summarized in just three statements:

1. Only if God exists is it even possible that the world is meaningful.
2. Only if God revealed this to us, could we know it.
3. Only in the historical person of Jesus do we have reason to think God has done this; for it is only there that the precondition of rationality identified in the second statement appears to be actualized.


I understand that without the context of my presentations of the last few years, these statements might be too succinct, and consequently a bit cryptic, but hopefully the following challenges will provide a bit of that context. As these three statements encapsulate my reasons for belief, the following are the responses I would need if I were to stop believing.

1. Explain how things such as rationality, evidence, truth, knowledge, will, consciousness, and morality, conceived as accidents, can even possibly be accidentally meaningful. To be clear I am not asking for an actual detailed account of meaning, that would be asking for too much. Rather, I am asking for a reconciliation of the contradictory claims that the world is both accidental and meaningful. If this question cannot be answered, then theism is a necessary condition for rational human experience and the non-theist has nothing to contribute to the discussion. I must confess, however, that the challenge here is not completely sincere, for to understand this challenge is to understand that it cannot be answered.

2. Understand David Hume's critique of perception and the post-modern critique of modernity, then explain how it is even possible to get past perception and past fictional constructs to a picture of the real world.

3. Demonstrate, on the theistic assumption, that there is no evidence that Jesus died and rose from the dead.

It is important to note that the first two challenges only have to do with epistemology as a possibility, not an actuality; for if it is not meaningful to talk about a thing as being simultaneously an accident and a signifier, then an accidental world evidences nothing, and the third challenge must be addressed on the theistic assumption, as it would be meaningless to address it as natural or neutral.

*This article is a critique of a book critiquing Christianity titled Seeing through Revelation.

religion developed out of mankind's fear of the overwhelmingly powerful forces around him

humility and fear of The LORD are virtues

together all of the knowledge and reason acquired by humanity does not even register a single decimal point on the scales of the universe

only the proud and arrogant fool believes he has overcome what he calls superstition

are there any here in their vast and infinite wisdom of the universe who can confidently proclaim there is no God?


dead religions? still better than a proud arrogant fool who believes himself to be the center of the universe

belief in the One True Living God dates back more than 4,000 years

the first books of the Tanakh/Bible are over 3,000 years old and still selling strong. how many copies of gilgamesh sold last year or what was the shelf life of the hymn to aten?

You just made about every blatant and sophomoric mistake one can make and you did it in lieu of having any kind of case.

Should we take your word for it, or are you actually going to engage what he wrote?

his response was word salad full of pride and arrogance

there are countless dead religions. there is one religion hinduism that in thousands of years has never grown outside of its own people

belief in the One True Living God, judaism, christianity, and islam, has grown and flourished across so many cultures and countries for thousands of years

in fact is at its strongest point today, as prophesied in Scripture

only arrogant prideful fools in open rebellion against God believe they are significant enough to have overcome what they call superstition

Well said.

Fella-Gaga is a master of Psychological Reductionism.

I often respond to him with one of my favorite Dennis Prager quotes:

Psychological reductionism is the last refuge for someone without an argument.

thats the great irony with atheists they are so proud of themselves for overcoming what they call superstition but their pride and arrogance blinds them to how utterly insignificant they are in the universe their descendants will look back on them and consider them nothing but idiots

the real battle for souls is much more subtle which people of the faith are true men and which have been deceived

non-believers are already captive slaves to sin and self-destruction the evil one and his fallen angels pass right by them on their way to pervert and corrupt believers into becoming the whore of babylon prostituting themselves into judgement

+1

Modern Philosophy (which literally means "love of knowledge") typically denies the very existence of wisdom or knowledge.

Modern Psychology (which literally means "Knowledge of the soul") almost universally denies the very existence of the soul.

Modern Axiology (the study of moral and aesthetic value) typically denies the very existence of any absolute, objective values.

In my opinion, the so-called "Dark Ages" didn't occur during the Middle Ages; it is occurring right now.

they dont realize how they look

"arent i so smart i dont believe in all that religion superstition lots of goatherders lolz lolz"

their grandkids will call them backwards superstitious idiots

the faithful their grandkids of the grandkids of the grandkids of the grandkids of the grandkids of the grandkids etc. etc. etc. all believe the same thing

across many countries and cultures even centuries and millenia

must be a thing!

There are thousands of religions. They all get passed down from generation to generation, just presuming that the one of their culture is true. This obviously is fallacious. When someone gets it thru their head that they are simply practicing one of the multitudes of religions that were all made up, most in contradiction with each other, then they have a footing that respects the nature of religion and that is not simply miming doctrine as if it was something it isn't. "Oh, but maybe all of them but one were made up. Of course ... mine." Isn't it funny that the true believer, having known the mysteries of the world since kindergarten, accuses the gnostic/agnostic of being arrogantly sure, when it is in fact the true believer that is doing exactly that ... while us non-gullible respect greatly The Great Mystery.

i have to stop you right there and not read the rest of your post because i will not go in circles with your purposeful argumentation

you are too proud of a person in open rebellion against God. pride is the devil's sin the foundation upon which all other sins are built

there are thousands of dead religions. they died because they were not true

hindu religion has existed a long time but it never grew beyond its own people

judaism, christianity, islam, all their sects, have grown and flourished for thousands of years

they are more popular now than when they started

atheists claim superiority in their pride about how wise they are compared to what they call superstition

but their false words will pass away as future generations call them superstitious

the faithful their words are full of truth and flourish generation to generation

discern what is true

FellaGaga,

You are arguing with people whose minds are immune to objective facts, logic, and reason.
They are blinded by their faith and even view their bias and close-minded-ness as a virtue! ("We don't need evidence! That's why they call it faith!").

They are as likely to be swayed by your logical arguments as you are to be persuaded by their subjective, incoherent pseudo-biblical, grand, and vapid proclamations like "but their false words will pass away as future generations call them superstitious" and "the faithful their words are full of truth and flourish generation to generation".

Jehovah-Jireh is SO outrageous that I suspect he's just one of these weird guys who "gets off" on trolling and isn't real.

So....although I enjoyed reading your posts, it's really a waste of your time.

logic and reason should lead you to putting your faith in what is true and disbelieving what has proven to be untrue

isaac newton and albert einstein and all men of their order have proven to be untrue century after century

one hundred years from now the men of that day will look back at your proud wisdom and consider you a backwards fool

but belief in the One True Living God has not changed in thousands of years

believers now number in the billions of people across continents and countries and cultures over half of the world's population

discern what is true

Hi, Lunkwill.

The following (which I posted almost two weeks ago without anyone even attempting to refute) would seem to contradict your claim above.


What follows is an except from an unpublished article written by Russ Manion. (I have his permission to post a portion of his article here.) Manion is the co-founder and moderator of a SoCal philosophy discussion group called Dialogue that began in 1980 and continued until about three years ago when he moved to NorCal.

This is an excerpt from an article he shared at his Dialogue group. It is titled, "My Take on 'Seeing Through Revelation'* & Why I Am A Christian":

People are theists for same reason they are atheists, it is how they make sense of the world. But theists believe the world makes sense specifically because they believe there actually is an explanation for it. For theists the idea that the world makes sense and the idea that there is an explanation for it, in a very deep sense, are the same idea. In that deep sense theism just is the belief that the world makes sense. Atheists sometimes think that if they can point out a problem with some particular way theism is expressed, that theists should give up theism. But from the theist's point of view, they are being asked to believe that the world does not make sense after all, simply because there is a problem with the way they expressed their theism. Given the choice, theists will generally just rethink the way they expresses [sic] their theism. No theist is tempted to believe in a world he thinks is meaningless. Atheists respond to such challenges in the exact same way. This is all "Seeing Through Revelation" would amount to even if it did not have the problems itemized above [earlier in the article not quoted in this except].

It is this "deep sense" which gets to the heart of why I am a Christian. I am absolutely convinced the world is utterly rational, but that is the opposite of accidental. Christianity answers the deep questions, the hard questions. But I do not believe it just because it answers the questions, but because if it is not the answer, then there are no answers, and there is no sense of the world to be made. My reasons can be summarized in just three statements:

1. Only if God exists is it even possible that the world is meaningful.
2. Only if God revealed this to us, could we know it.
3. Only in the historical person of Jesus do we have reason to think God has done this; for it is only there that the precondition of rationality identified in the second statement appears to be actualized.


I understand that without the context of my presentations of the last few years, these statements might be too succinct, and consequently a bit cryptic, but hopefully the following challenges will provide a bit of that context. As these three statements encapsulate my reasons for belief, the following are the responses I would need if I were to stop believing.

1. Explain how things such as rationality, evidence, truth, knowledge, will, consciousness, and morality, conceived as accidents, can even possibly be accidentally meaningful. To be clear I am not asking for an actual detailed account of meaning, that would be asking for too much. Rather, I am asking for a reconciliation of the contradictory claims that the world is both accidental and meaningful. If this question cannot be answered, then theism is a necessary condition for rational human experience and the non-theist has nothing to contribute to the discussion. I must confess, however, that the challenge here is not completely sincere, for to understand this challenge is to understand that it cannot be answered.

2. Understand David Hume's critique of perception and the post-modern critique of modernity, then explain how it is even possible to get past perception and past fictional constructs to a picture of the real world.

3. Demonstrate, on the theistic assumption, that there is no evidence that Jesus died and rose from the dead.

It is important to note that the first two challenges only have to do with epistemology as a possibility, not an actuality; for if it is not meaningful to talk about a thing as being simultaneously an accident and a signifier, then an accidental world evidences nothing, and the third challenge must be addressed on the theistic assumption, as it would be meaningless to address it as natural or neutral.

*This article is a critique of a book critiquing Christianity titled Seeing through Revelation.