Jesse

Seraphim:
Exactly which branch of Science did this "smoogliferent" comes from? It is illogical to even add data which is unmeasureable into a physics discussion, much less calling it scientific.

No, the fact that "smoogliferent" is not itself a scientific term is irrelevant. All that matters is that the truth-value of the question "Would a smoogliferent being know my eye color" is precisely equivalent to that of the question "am I a vegetarian." If one is true, the other will always be true, and if one is false, the other will always be false. So if you agree one is a scientific question, the other must be too, since it's really nothing more than a restatement of the exact same question using some different words and definitions.

Jesse:
Would you say the question of whether particles really have well-defined simultaneous positions and momenta is not a scientific issue?

Seraphim:
Not if you add God's opinion into it. Hell, anyone here knows what God is thinking?

It shouldn't matter what God is "thinking" or if God even exists, as long as you accept that part of the definition of being God is being omniscient, and part of the definition of omniscience is knowing every true fact about the universe. If you don't define God that way then you're right that the original poster's question might not be scientific, but if you do then by definition it's the same question as whether there is a true fact about whether particles have well-defined position and momentum. Feel free to substitute some different words (even nonsense-words like smoogliferent) for "God" and "omniscient", as long as you use the same definitions it's still the exact same question.

Jesse:
Anyway, you're free to disagree with me on these issues, but speaking as a moderator personal comments like "get a life" are inappropriate. Please avoid making them.

Seraphim:
Sorry ... I wasn't telling you to get a life, I was referring to those who are adding God into their little fiasca here.

I wasn't taking your comment personally, but my request applies to your comments to others as well (and to their comments to you). Feel free to scoff at another person's arguments or logic as much as you like, but it's not necessary to get personal.

Answerer

Maybe, the christians know since they trust God so much.

VonEvilstein

This thread has lead me, through link after link, to some very interesting reading. Not to mention in the thread itsself.

Seraphim, I'm trying to construct a godseye view from outside the universe, but am unable to imagine such a concept. But, thread opener aside, this is a scientific discussion, or at the very least a discussion about science. One's faith, or lack thereof, doesn't matter at all when considering the actual question at hand.

nermal

Is it really any different than asking what Captain Kirk would do in such and such situation? It's oodles of fun.

Ed

eh

Well I've noticed that with over 700 posts here in short time, you certainly DO spend a lot of time talking about it. If the fact that atheists on these boards can have a good laugh over silly deities bothers you, you might want to remember where you are.

Jesse

eh, as I said to Seraphim, please refrain from personal comments about people's posting habits, motives, etc.

Seraphim

By Jesse

No, the fact that "smoogliferent" is not itself a scientific term is irrelevant. All that matters is that the truth-value of the question "Would a smoogliferent being know my eye color" is precisely equivalent to that of the question "am I a vegetarian." If one is true, the other will always be true, and if one is false, the other will always be false. So if you agree one is a scientific question, the other must be too, since it's really nothing more than a restatement of the exact same question using some different words and definitions.

To have a scientific debate/discussion, you must first have something scientific - measureble, definable by maths or physics or both or something simply logic (like Quantum Physics). While I admit that Irregulaties in Physics IS Scientific question, I don't see how God can be added into this discussion.

It is illogical since you all had been arguing since I came here that God couldn't be measured, defined or bring forth in logic (yours anyway). How is it now that it is acceptable to add an undefine data into a physic debate? It is illogical.

You are claiming that by making one assumption, you can define another - example of your color of your eyes is assumption of that you're a vegetarian. This is ILLOGICAL as well since science can proof that color of eyes doesn't change due to your food intake.

In same way, it is illogical to assume ANYTHING about an unknown factor (God) by examining (or making your own assumptions) about another factor (Physics).

It shouldn't matter what God is "thinking" or if God even exists, as long as you accept that part of the definition of being God is being omniscient, and part of the definition of omniscience is knowing every true fact about the universe. If you don't define God that way then you're right that the original poster's question might not be scientific, but if you do then by definition it's the same question as whether there is a true fact about whether particles have well-defined position and momentum. Feel free to substitute some different words (even nonsense-words like smoogliferent) for "God" and "omniscient", as long as you use the same definitions it's still the exact same question.

My reply : Pardon my choice of words but I couldn't find anything more suitable.

Your statement is stupid. If existence of God is shouldn't matter OR if God do exist and what He thinks doesn't matter, then where is the basis of discussion here? There is NO discussion since you are adding your own definations into it and making your own assumptions. Again, the whole things is ... simply put - stupid. Again, pardon my choice of words since I cannot find any suitable one.

I wasn't taking your comment personally, but my request applies to your comments to others as well (and to their comments to you). Feel free to scoff at another person's arguments or logic as much as you like, but it's not necessary to get personal.

Alright ... warning is noted.


By Answerer

Maybe, the christians know since they trust God so much.

Trusting God doesn't means they know what God is thinking, Pal nor do they had seen God and asked His opinion about this matter.

You assuming that they will know so you are making it up to satisfy yourselves. There is no discussion (much less scientific one) here except someone is wasting everyone's time and pissing off certain people.

Jesse

Seraphim:
To have a scientific debate/discussion, you must first have something scientific - measureble, definable by maths or physics or both or something simply logic (like Quantum Physics).

Yes, and we do--the question of whether particles have a well-defined simultaneous position and momentum. Changing this to a question about what an omniscient God would know does not remove the scientific content of this question.

Seraphim:
It is illogical since you all had been arguing since I came here that God couldn't be measured, defined or bring forth in logic (yours anyway). How is it now that it is acceptable to add an undefine data into a physic debate? It is illogical.

What do you mean? Of course God can be defined, that's been my whole argument all along, that as long as you accept the definition of "God" as omniscient and "omniscient" as knowing all true facts about the universe, then any other questions about the nature of God are irrelevant to the question.

Look, suppose I want to know whether a moving electric current produces a magnetic field. That's a scientific question, right? OK, now I will define a "blorgismak" as an entity that is blue if moving electric currents do produce magnetic fields, and is red if moving electric currents do not produce magnetic fields. So, isn't the question "would a blorgismak be red or blue" exactly equivalent to the question "does a moving electric current produce a magnetic field"? Isn't it just asking the exact same question using some different words and definitions? How could one question be scientific while the other is not?

Seraphim:
You are claiming that by making one assumption, you can define another - example of your color of your eyes is assumption of that you're a vegetarian. This is ILLOGICAL as well since science can proof that color of eyes doesn't change due to your food intake.

I don't think you were paying enough attention to my definitions, since I didn't say anything about the color of my eyes being different depending on whether I was a vegetarian or not. I just asked whether a "smoogliferent being" would know what my eye color is, given the definition of a "smoogliferent being" as "a being who knows the eye color of all vegetarians". It's a bit like how the question "have I been nice this year" is equivalent to the question "would santa clause, if he existed, give me presents this year" assuming that part of the definition of santa clause is "a being who gives presents to those who have been nice but not to those who have been naughty."

Seraphim:
In same way, it is illogical to assume ANYTHING about an unknown factor (God) by examining (or making your own assumptions) about another factor (Physics).

I'm not assuming anything, I'm just defining words! If a very powerful and wise being who created the universe but was not omniscient existed, some people might call him "God" but he wouldn't qualify according to my definitions. I'm not making factual assertions about a preexisting entity known as "God", I'm just using a particular definition of what features an entity would need to have to qualify as "God" according to my definition. This is not meant as a falsifiable claim about reality, any more than any other word-definition.


Jesse:
It shouldn't matter what God is "thinking" or if God even exists, as long as you accept that part of the definition of being God is being omniscient, and part of the definition of omniscience is knowing every true fact about the universe. If you don't define God that way then you're right that the original poster's question might not be scientific, but if you do then by definition it's the same question as whether there is a true fact about whether particles have well-defined position and momentum. Feel free to substitute some different words (even nonsense-words like smoogliferent) for "God" and "omniscient", as long as you use the same definitions it's still the exact same question.

Seraphim:
My reply : Pardon my choice of words but I couldn't find anything more suitable.

Your statement is stupid. If existence of God is shouldn't matter OR if God do exist and what He thinks doesn't matter, then where is the basis of discussion here? There is NO discussion since you are adding your own definations into it and making your own assumptions.

Yes! Exactly! I'm just using a fairly-widely accepted definition of the word "God" according to which no entity can qualify as God unless he is omniscient. Maybe you think this is "stupid", but hopefully now that you understand that it's purely an issue of definitions and not empirical claims about a preexisting entity called "God", you'll agree that "would 'God' know the simultaneous position and momentum of particles?" is really a valid scientific question, just like the equally "stupid" but still scientifcally-valid question "would a 'blorgismak' be red or blue?"

Seraphim

By Jesse

Yes, and we do--the question of whether particles have a well-defined simultaneous position and momentum. Changing this to a question about what an omniscient God would know does not remove the scientific content of this question.

No you don't. What we have here is poor excuse for a poor thread. Defining something just because you can doesn't means it is valid or logical.

While half the argument (relating to Physics) is valid, adding God into this pictures is not.

Since you are so eager to add God into the argument, then what is the calculations/measure etc that shows that God plays some factor into this argument?

What do you mean? Of course God can be defined, that's been my whole argument all along, that as long as you accept the definition of "God" as omniscient and "omniscient" as knowing all true facts about the universe, then any other questions about the nature of God are irrelevant to the question.

Then define God in terms that we could use Him in Scientific argument.

Look, suppose I want to know whether a moving electric current produces a magnetic field. That's a scientific question, right? OK, now I will define a "blorgismak" as an entity that is blue if moving electric currents do produce magnetic fields, and is red if moving electric currents do not produce magnetic fields. So, isn't the question "would a blorgismak be red or blue" exactly equivalent to the question "does a moving electric current produce a magnetic field"? Isn't it just asking the exact same question using some different words and definitions? How could one question be scientific while the other is not?

Fine example except it didn't fit with God in your argument.
In your example, this "blorgismak" (or whatever) does return some sort of output for whatever input you added (in this example, changing of electromagnetic field).

So assuming that "blorgismak" in question now is God, what is His reaction toward the change in irregularities observed? What is the irregulaties we are talking about and what is its effect what we could notice to show that there is a change which "God" could be effected by it?

I don't think you were paying enough attention to my definitions, since I didn't say anything about the color of my eyes being different depending on whether I was a vegetarian or not. I just asked whether a "smoogliferent being" would know what my eye color is, given the definition of a "smoogliferent being" as "a being who knows the eye color of all vegetarians". It's a bit like how the question "have I been nice this year" is equivalent to the question "would santa clause, if he existed, give me presents this year" assuming that part of the definition of santa clause is "a being who gives presents to those who have been nice but not to those who have been naughty."

And you are not being logical nor scientific in the whole process.
It is YOUR example which stated that color of the eyes depends (up to a certain degree) to the fact that the person is vegetarian or not. Are you changing your statement now that color of the eyes has nothing to do with being vegetarian?

If so, what is the argument about? I could consider that this "smoogliferent" (where you people get this names?) is simply random occurance and has nothing to do with food nor the color of the eyes.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm just defining words! If a very powerful and wise being who created the universe but was not omniscient existed, some people might call him "God" but he wouldn't qualify according to my definitions. I'm not making factual assertions about a preexisting entity known as "God", I'm just using a particular definition of what features an entity would need to have to qualify as "God" according to my definition. This is not meant as a falsifiable claim about reality, any more than any other word-definition.

Assuming or defining ... WHAT is the difference?
You are assuming that such creature as God exists simply because you defined it and since you defined it, that makes it valid to be used in scientific argument.

It seems that you don't know God NOR do you know anything about Science. I will not bother myself to teach you about God since your "defination" is enough for you (and I'm not particular care about you either) but I will say something in behalf of Science.

Science do NOT about making assumptions or making illogical (if not stupid) defination based on something you yourselves don't know much about.

Yes! Exactly! I'm just using a fairly-widely accepted definition of the word "God" according to which no entity can qualify as God unless he is omniscient. Maybe you think this is "stupid", but hopefully now that you understand that it's purely an issue of definitions and not empirical claims about a preexisting entity called "God", you'll agree that "would 'God' know the simultaneous position and momentum of particles?" is really a valid scientific question, just like the equally "stupid" but still scientifcally-valid question "would a 'blorgismak' be red or blue?"

Nope, the question of what God "thinks" about some irregulaties in Physics IS stupid.

At least I found that "blorgismak" example somewhat logical since interaction between magnetic field did show some change. This whole thing about what God could think is riddiculos and I'm surprise on why such thread is in this column.

Jesse

Seraphim:
While half the argument (relating to Physics) is valid, adding God into this pictures is not.

Do you think "adding a blorgismak into the picture" makes the question about magnetic fields and electric currents invalid? It's just another way of asking the same question, using some different words with their own definitions. Same with the way I'm using the word "God"?

Seraphim:
Since you are so eager to add God into the argument, then what is the calculations/measure etc that shows that God plays some factor into this argument?

If I define the word "blorgismak" do I need to have calculations or measures that show it "plays some factor in the argument"? Of course not, nothing in the argument depends on empirical questions about whether anything matching my definition of a "blorgismak" actually exists or not, since my question is just "if a blorgismak did exist, would it be red or blue." Again, it's just a matter of how I'm defining the word "blorgismak." Same with the use of "God" in the question of whether God would know the simultaneous position and momentum of a particle.

Jesse:
What do you mean? Of course God can be defined, that's been my whole argument all along, that as long as you accept the definition of "God" as omniscient and "omniscient" as knowing all true facts about the universe, then any other questions about the nature of God are irrelevant to the question.

Seraphim:
Then define God in terms that we could use Him in Scientific argument.

God = an omniscient being
omniscient = knowing every true fact about the universe

So, "would God know the position and momentum of a particle" is equivalent to the question "is there a true fact about what a particle's position and momentum are". Again, just asking the same question with some different words.

Jesse:
Look, suppose I want to know whether a moving electric current produces a magnetic field. That's a scientific question, right? OK, now I will define a "blorgismak" as an entity that is blue if moving electric currents do produce magnetic fields, and is red if moving electric currents do not produce magnetic fields. So, isn't the question "would a blorgismak be red or blue" exactly equivalent to the question "does a moving electric current produce a magnetic field"? Isn't it just asking the exact same question using some different words and definitions? How could one question be scientific while the other is not?

Seraphim:
Fine example except it didn't fit with God in your argument.
In your example, this "blorgismak" (or whatever) does return some sort of output for whatever input you added (in this example, changing of electromagnetic field).

Yes, and to use your words, in my argument God would "return the output" of knowing the position and momentum of a particle if there is a true fact about its particle and momentum, but not knowing it otherwise. This is equivalent to how a blorgismak would "return the output" of being blue if moving electric currents produce magnetic fields, or being red if they don't.

Seraphim:
So assuming that "blorgismak" in question now is God, what is His reaction toward the change in irregularities observed? What is the irregulaties we are talking about and what is its effect what we could notice to show that there is a change which "God" could be effected by it?

If there was a real truth about a particle's simultaneous position and momentum, God would know it, but if there wasn't, he wouldn't.

Jesse:
I don't think you were paying enough attention to my definitions, since I didn't say anything about the color of my eyes being different depending on whether I was a vegetarian or not. I just asked whether a "smoogliferent being" would know what my eye color is, given the definition of a "smoogliferent being" as "a being who knows the eye color of all vegetarians". It's a bit like how the question "have I been nice this year" is equivalent to the question "would santa clause, if he existed, give me presents this year" assuming that part of the definition of santa clause is "a being who gives presents to those who have been nice but not to those who have been naughty."

Seraphim:
And you are not being logical nor scientific in the whole process.
It is YOUR example which stated that color of the eyes depends (up to a certain degree) to the fact that the person is vegetarian or not. Are you changing your statement now that color of the eyes has nothing to do with being vegetarian?

Again, you are wrong. If you think I ever said that whether I am a vegetarian or not effects the color of my eyes, please go back and find the quote. All I said was that whether I am a vegetarian or not effects a hypothetical smoogliferent being's knowledge of my eye color--that was just my definition of what it meant to be "smoogliferent." Again, my point was just that the question "would a smoogliferent being know my eye color" is exactly equivalent to the question "am I a vegetarian", it just asks the question using some different words and definitions.

Seraphim:
If so, what is the argument about? I could consider that this "smoogliferent" (where you people get this names?) is simply random occurance and has nothing to do with food nor the color of the eyes.

Huh? I defined the term "smoogliferent being" to mean a being that knows my eye color if I'm a vegetarian. If it "had nothing to do with food nor the color of the eyes", it wouldn't be "smoogliferent", by definition! You keep acting as though all these words refer to preexisting entities so that it's possible to question whether they meet the definitions or not, but I keep trying to make it clear that in my arguments the words refer to nothing more than the definitions themselves. If something doesn't match the definition, then I just wouldn't use that word to describe it.

Seraphim:
Assuming or defining ... WHAT is the difference?
You are assuming that such creature as God exists simply because you defined it and since you defined it, that makes it valid to be used in scientific argument.

No, the existence or non-existence of entities matching the definitions is irrelevant! The question is not, "does God know the position and momentum of particles", it's "would God know the position and momentum of particles (if such an entity existed)." The answer doesn't depend on whether God actually exists or not, any more than my other questions depend on whether smoogliferent beings or blorgismaks actually exist.

Seraphim:
It seems that you don't know God NOR do you know anything about Science. I will not bother myself to teach you about God since your "defination" is enough for you

Sigh. No, the empirical question of whether an omniscient being exists or not is one that is something I would like to know on its own, and if it did I would want to know a lot more about the qualities of this being besides the mere fact that it is omniscient. But all I'm saying is that none of these other issues are relevant to the question about particle's position and momentum. Suppose one guy believes an omniscient being exists and is infinitely good, another believes an omniscient being exists and is infinitely evil, and another believes that no omniscient beings exist at all. I, and probably everyone else in the world, would care a lot about knowing which of these three guys was right. But as long as they all agree about the answer to the question "is there a true fact about a particle's position and momentum", they will also all agree on the answer to the question "would an omniscient being know the position and momentum of a particle". All the other questions about the qualities of a hypothetical omniscient being, like whether it exists or whether it is good or evil, are irrelevant to that particular question, even if they may be very relevant in other ways.

Seraphim:
Nope, the question of what God "thinks" about some irregulaties in Physics IS stupid.

The question is not about God's opinion but just about the question of whether an omniscient being would have knowledge of the answers to certain questions about particles, which is just another way of asking whether there is a true answer to these questions or if they are meaningless.

Seraphim:
At least I found that "blorgismak" example somewhat logical since interaction between magnetic field did show some change.

One more time:

blorgismak blue = electric currents produce magnetic fields

blorgismak red = electric currents do not produce magnetic fields

"would a blorgismak be red or blue?" = "do electric currents produce magnetic fields?"

omniscient being knows a particle's position and momentum = there is a true fact about a particle's position and momentum

omniscient being doesn't know a particle's position and momentum = there is no true fact about a particle's position and momentum

"would an omniscient being know a particle's position and momentum?" = "is there a true fact about a particle's position and momentum?"