How Certain Are You?

[Vigile]

There seems to be some confusion regarding what the supernatural is. The supernatural is not the unknown or even the unknowable. We may never be able to mathematically predict what occurred before Planck time in the singularity(therefore unknowable), but that does not make it supernatural. The supernatural, is by definition, outside physics (Physics defines the natural world).

 

More over, if the supernatural existed it may still be able to interact with the natural world, but not be subject to the same form of predictability that the natural world is. For example, in order for a phenomenon to be natural it is necessary and sufficient that it be both detectable and predictable via the laws of physics. A supernatural phenomenon may be detectable, but not predictable.

 

This is utterly nonsensical. By this definition, I'm 100% certain there is no supernatural.

[Snakefoot]

Specific examples of the supernatural, please.

 

And I'd like that super-sized.

Ain't gonna happen. OP has already pussed out and started a new thread.

[Legion]

My fellow heathens, I suspect my expectations were too high. I was hoping for a worthy opponent, but I am beginning to feel disappointment. And the disappointment is my fault for having high expectations.

[RankStranger]

My fellow heathens, I suspect my expectations were too high. I was hoping for a worthy opponent, but I am beginning to feel disappointment. And the disappointment is my fault for having high expectations.

Artful Dodger.

[Brother Jeff]

Jesus is magic.

 

Indeed He is, and that includes His Turds!

 

http://magicturdofjesus.com

 

Glory!

[Snakefoot]

My fellow heathens, I suspect my expectations were too high. I was hoping for a worthy opponent, but I am beginning to feel disappointment. And the disappointment is my fault for having high expectations.

Artful Dodger.

[Brother Jeff]

I have two observations from this thread ...

1) I'm very surprised by the level of certainty many seem to have regarding the non-existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It makes no logical sense. They may conclude that probabilistically they don't believe, but one can not conclude God is logically impossible.

2) The gate is frequently left open for the supernatural. Judging from reading other areas of this site. I think this is way under reported, too.

 

Personally I think people over compensate in their "certainty" of the non-existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

This thread segues nicely (no coincidence) into two other subjects; The Nature of Evidence, or how can one be "certain", and two, The Implications of the Existence of the Supernatural. You'll find the former here.

 

1) The existence of the Christian God is logically impossible, so therefore it is indeed possible to conclude with absolute certainty that he does not exist. See this link, just for starters:

 

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_impossible.html

 

I'm quite sure that if you do a search as I did for "christian god logically impossible" or something similar, you'll find plenty of reading material, just as I did. Why is it that Christians refuse to do or at least fail to do even the most basic research before they start asking questions and attempting to apologize for their absurd beliefs?

 

2) Not all ex-Christians are Atheists. There is a forum here specifically for folks who have left Christianity for other spiritual belief systems. The militant Atheists here tend to be vocal, as is their right, but so do those of us who are more open-minded to the possibility that some sort of god or spiritual reality exists. We have a nice mix of folks here, with the common thread binding us together being our ex-Christian status.

[OrdinaryClay]

No, If you were to tell a physicist that Quantum Mechanics was not predictive they would laugh at you.

Well, you're simply wrong.

 

It is actually one of the most precisely verified(through prior predictions, i.e. attempts at falsification) theories of nature we have.

You're confusing proving the theory with how predictable the events are.

 

The answer is, no, the quantum events are not predicable the way you think they are. The quantum events have probabilities, not "predictabilities."

 

Let me give you just one single quote from my particle physics encyclopedia (don't we all have one ). If you want one, it's called Q for Quantum, and it's written by John Gribbs. He's got a Ph.D in astrophysics, at Cambridge.

 

This is from the section about the Casimir effect:

Quantum uncertainty allows energy to appear spontaneously from nothing as long as it disappears again swiftly.

And for your information, spontaneously in this sense means random, without warning, without prediction, it just happens.

 

Just because something has a stochastic element to it does not make it unpredictable. On the contrary, the very definition of a probability distribution is that I can make predictions based on this distribution. This is after all the nature of Statistical Inference.

Hrm... Statistical distribution is not the same as predictable. You can't predict anything at a local level, you can only predict an estimate of a number in a larger are. It's like saying, "We will have zero, one, or two winners in Lotto, but we don't know who it will be." That is not very predictable, especially not when suddenly you have seven winners.

 

I just realized that I think our problem here is how we are using the word "predictable." We're using them in different ways. You use it for something that can be predicted in a general sense and on a larger scale; while I'm talking about specific events on a localized area. Using your definition: sure, quantum events are predictable because we know they happen. But using my definition: a single localized quantum event is not predicable at all. Neither definition is really wrong; we're just talking about predictability on different levels.

 

But the problem still exists, even if quantum events are predictable on a general statistical level (your definition), single events are not predictable on a localized level (my definition). So on a localized level, quantum events are magical and supernatural.

A probability distribution is in fact predictive. This is exactly why statistical inference is a branch of mathematics. This is why so many other branches of science use it. The scale does not matter. You need to understand the distribution is in fact induced on the events. What matters is the form of the distribution. True unpredictability is a potentially random event not influenced by some by fixed distribution.

 

Just because a single event has some level of uncertainty does not mean there is in fact no predictive power in what we know about that single event. This can be demonstrated by just choosing a tighter distribution. Also, The Law of Large Numbers says definitively that given a distribution you will get a certain result given enough events.

 

BTW - The Casimir Effect does not violate the conservation of energy laws. Quantum fluctuations do not create new energy.

 

I'm sorry if you find this all inconvenient to our faith.

[Snakefoot]

Since our revelatory benefactor clearly is not going to pony up an example of a supernatural event, let's explore why that is:

 

Any alleged supernatural event proffered would perforce be babblical in nature. And none--no, not one--babblical "miracle" or magic trick is anything but the delusions (or lies) of its superstitious authors. All babblical "supernatural" mainfestations are readily explained as natural events, whether literal or psychological.

 

Ergo, no truly supernatural manifestations exist, so no example can be given.

[Brother Jeff]

Since our revelatory benefactor clearly is not going to pony up an example of a supernatural event, let's explore why that is:

 

Any alleged supernatural event proffered would perforce be babblical in nature. And none--no, not one--babblical "miracle" or magic trick is anything but the delusions (or lies) of its superstitious authors. All babblical "supernatural" mainfestations are readily explained as natural events, whether literal or psychological.

 

Ergo, no truly supernatural manifestations exist, so no example can be given.

 

Agreed. But our revelatory benefactor is doing an awesome job of posting irrelevant bullshit. Bless the Lard! Glory!

[mwc]

Then you are simply begging the question, which is common. This is the standard, and fallacious, position of many materialists.

I'm simply waiting for you to present evidence of this supernatural you keep speaking about. I'm not begging the question...I'm begging the answer. Please get on with it.

 

mwc

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

I cannot help but feel you have a somewhat scripted monologue that you are adhering to.

 

But the more you define the supernatural, the more certain I am that it does not exist. I cannot begin to comprehend an event which fits your criteria, which is the problem Snakefoot and others have presented to you. The only reason you do not get to the point as I see it, is because it isn't following the specified order of argument you have planned.

[OrdinaryClay]

Do you believe in free will? I believe there is free will. I see no evidence or logical reason that behavior is completely predictive. Do you honestly believe you do not have the ability to act irrationally or unpredictably. Of course you do. Unpredictable behavior can be a powerful strategy in competition, in fact.

Several things here...

 

I'm not sure about free will. In many ways I agree with Forrest Gump. I'm not certain that the existance free will implies that behavior is unpredictable. Destiny or choice, maybe it's both at the same time.

Okay, though I don't understand exactly what you mean.

 

Also, a tactical note... What you've done here is ask a question about my beliefs and then presumed to tell me what I believe. That sends up red flags for me in terms of assessing your character.

I clearly asked the question and pre-answered one of your possible answers. There is nothing untoward about that. Since you obviously were able to "clarify" in that you said you were not sure

about the existence of free will. If you turn out not to believe in free will this will completely negate my pre-response. If you turn out to not believe in free will then my pre-response simply becomes a proper response.

 

I find your accusation confusing to be honest.

 

I fail to see the relevance to the discussion. How we feel about it doesn't matter. It is or it isn't.

I think it is relevant. I think we often hold beliefs not only on the basis of their veracity, but also on the basis of how holding those beliefs makes us feel. In good faith, I've been honest with you.

Thanks for being honest. I was also being honest. I simply don't see how our feelings are relevant. Truth exists independent of our feeling. Otherwise it is not truth.

 

Edit: Last sentence for grammar.

[Legion]

I'm simply waiting for you to present evidence of this supernatural you keep speaking about. I'm not begging the question...I'm begging the answer. Please get on with it.

 

mwc

MWC I've been wanting to ask you for the longest time. I see others do it, but I don't understand.

 

Why in the hell do you sign your user name to the end of your posts when we can already clearly see who's doing the posting?

[Ouroboros]

A probability distribution is in fact predictive. This is exactly why statistical inference is a branch of mathematics. This is why so many other branches of science use it. The scale does not matter. You need to understand the distribution is in fact induced on the events. What matters is the form of the distribution. True unpredictability is a potentially random event not influenced by some by fixed distribution.

 

Just because a single event has some level of uncertainty does not mean there is in fact no predictive power in what we know about that single event. This can be demonstrated by just choosing a tighter distribution. Also, The Law of Large Numbers says definitively that given a distribution you will get a certain result given enough events.

 

BTW - The Casimir Effect does not violate the conservation of energy laws. Quantum fluctuations do not create new energy.

 

I'm sorry if you find this all inconvenient to our faith.

You don't get it. The individual quantum events cannot be predicted. It's a core foundation of quantum mechanics.

 

Let me quote Heisenberg: "We cannot know, as a matter of principle, the present in all its details."

 

I don't care how much you skip and jump around the subject, but I am quite certain about this.

 

What you are talking about is certainty on a higher level, the statistical level, but it is a core principle of quantum mechanics that the individual and localized events are unpredictable.

 

End of story.

 

Indeterminism. Given an initial state of an isolated system, what evolves from that state at future times is only partially determined by the initial state. The system is described by a wave function, which evolves deterministically until the system spontaneously and suddenly undergoes a transition, such as radioactive decay, or until a measurement is performed on it. The occurrence of transitions and the values of physical quantities are not in general uniquely determined. Rather, the wave function gives the probabilities of transitions and the probabilities that the system's physical quantities, when measured, will have any of their allowed values. It is the probability, then, that is determined, while indeterminism reigns with regard to the actual occurrence of transitions and to the values of quantities. From this state of affairs, it follows that quantum predictability exists only with respect to probabilities. The time of occurrence of a spontaneous transition or the actual value measured for some physical variable are, in general, undetermined and therefore unpredictable.

(Encyclopedia of Physics:Quantum Physics)

 

So, well, fuck scientists and their damn encyclopedias. Christians are right, always, even when they're wrong.

[RankStranger]

I haven't denied that the supernatural can exist. I've only said that I just can't understand the concept of "supernatural"- beyond childish notions of 'magic'.

 

We've gone in enough circles over whether or not this as yet undefined 'supernatural' may or may not exist. Let's have some EXAMPLES of what we're discussing. Can you point to some person, place, thing, entity, or phenomenon that can not be explained via natural causes? Or is that even a definition that we can agree on?

[Legion]

Okay, though I don't understand exactly what you mean.

Fair enough, there are many things that I don't yet understand. And so I may not be making myself clear, because there is still confusion within me.

 

Thanks for being honest. I was also being honest. I simply don't see how our feelings are relevant. Truth exists independent of our feeling. Otherwise it is not truth.

Well I think in some sense this is our central issue. And so I'll say it one more time.

 

I think we humans, all of us, Christian or not, have a tendency to believe things not only on the basis of their truth, but also based on how believing them makes us feel.

[mwc]

MWC I've been wanting to ask you for the longest time. I see others do it, but I don't understand.

 

Why in the hell do you sign your user name to the end of your posts when we can already clearly see who's doing the posting?

<sniff> I just wanted someone to ask.

 

When I came here it was the only forum I ever visited other than USENET so I signed my name not realizing it wasn't needed. By the time it dawned on me it had become a habit. Then I thought to drop it but no one else really did it so I kept it.

 

I suppose if it bugs enough people I can lose it. It's no big deal to me either way. If it's just you then suck it.

 

mwc

[Snakefoot]

Us: Please provide an example of a supernatural event.

 

OrdinaryClay: blah blah blah philosophical bullshit blah blah more bullshit blah blah free will blah blah blah the supernatural blah blah Planck time blah blah physics blah blah E=MC^2.

 

Does that about cover it?

[OrdinaryClay]

My definition is both testable and falsifiable.

 

Bullshit. You have made no claims that can be testable, and you know it.

If something is detectable how is it not testable? If a detection is made. I can then analyse the evidence of detection, and see if it was a false detection. Is this not testable? I agree the non-predictability makes this more difficult, but the evidence gained through detection can be tested. This is what skeptics do all the time when trying to debunk.

 

 

In any event, you are making a positive claim regarding the set of cases and therefore your claim requires evidence.

 

You are the one making the positive claim. You claim there is a supernatural.

I made no claim the supernatural existed. I repeatedly stated if the supernatural existed. My claim is that it can be defined, which I did, even if you disagree with it. You are making the positive claim that "when claims have been made that are testable and falsifiable, they have universally been demonstrated to be natural phenomena, delusion, hallucination or illusion." This calls for evidence on your part.

[mwc]

Us: Please provide an example of a supernatural event.

Stop begging the question. Question beggars. The whole damn lot of you.

 

mwc

[Snakefoot]

Us: Please provide an example of a supernatural event.

Stop begging the question. Question beggars. The whole damn lot of you.

 

mwc

[Legion]

When I came here it was the only forum I ever visited other than USENET so I signed my name not realizing it wasn't needed. By the time it dawned on me it had become a habit. Then I thought to drop it but no one else really did it so I kept it.

 

I suppose if it bugs enough people I can lose it. It's no big deal to me either way. If it's just you then suck it.

 

mwc

Very well man, I don't have a problem with it. It just strikes me as odd. Thank you for the explanation.

 

Legion

[Snakefoot]

My definition is both testable and falsifiable.

 

Bullshit. You have made no claims that can be testable, and you know it.

If something is detectable how is it not testable? If a detection is made. I can then analyse the evidence of detection, and see if it was a false detection. Is this not testable? I agree the non-predictability makes this more difficult, but the evidence gained through detection can be tested. This is what skeptics do all the time when trying to debunk.

 

 

In any event, you are making a positive claim regarding the set of cases and therefore your claim requires evidence.

 

You are the one making the positive claim. You claim there is a supernatural.

I made no claim the supernatural existed. I repeatedly stated if the supernatural existed. My claim is that it can be defined, which I did, even if you disagree with it. You are making the positive claim that "when claims have been made that are testable and falsifiable, they have universally been demonstrated to be natural phenomena, delusion, hallucination or illusion." This calls for evidence on your part.

 

The James Randi Educational Foundation http://www.randi.org/site/

[OrdinaryClay]

I have two observations from this thread ...

1) I'm very surprised by the level of certainty many seem to have regarding the non-existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It makes no logical sense. They may conclude that probabilistically they don't believe, but one can not conclude God is logically impossible.

2) The gate is frequently left open for the supernatural. Judging from reading other areas of this site. I think this is way under reported, too.

 

Personally I think people over compensate in their "certainty" of the non-existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

This thread segues nicely (no coincidence) into two other subjects; The Nature of Evidence, or how can one be "certain", and two, The Implications of the Existence of the Supernatural. You'll find the former here.

 

1) The existence of the Christian God is logically impossible, so therefore it is indeed possible to conclude with absolute certainty that he does not exist. See this link, just for starters:

 

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_impossible.html

 

I'm quite sure that if you do a search as I did for "christian god logically impossible" or something similar, you'll find plenty of reading material, just as I did. Why is it that Christians refuse to do or at least fail to do even the most basic research before they start asking questions and attempting to apologize for their absurd beliefs?

Thanks for the link. I understand that many believe they have certain evidence for the logical impossibility of God. I personally have not seen a plausible case made to sustain these claims. Sometimes I think people confuse a logical impossibility with a probabilistic case for unlikelihood.