Does God play dice?

[Furrowed Brow]

So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.

Hawking is talking about the uncertainty principle viz., it is is not possible to exactly know both the position and momentum of a particle.

Does anyone still deny the uncertainty principle? Not sure if they do. Let's test that.

Does belief in an omniscient God contradict the uncertainty principle?
Can the uncertainty principle be true and there still be God?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 10 by Guy Threepwood]

So out of curiosity, what do you believe? who/what do you think is responsible for creating the world you see around you?

I don't have beliefs.

I don't know that the world was created.

I don't invent gods to explain things I don't know.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 10 by Guy Threepwood]

So out of curiosity, what do you believe? who/what do you think is responsible for creating the world you see around you?

I don't have beliefs.

I don't know that the world was created.

I don't invent gods to explain things I don't know.

As an a-naturalist, I have no beliefs either

I simply refuse to believe in any invented natural causes for the universe, until proven otherwise.

[Bust Nak]

As an a-naturalist, I have no beliefs either

I simply refuse to believe in any invented natural causes for the universe, until proven otherwise.

I don't believe you, what you said here does not gel with the things you've said about the causes for the universe, some of which appears in this very thread re: intelligent creator.

[Guy Threepwood]

As an a-naturalist, I have no beliefs either

I simply refuse to believe in any invented natural causes for the universe, until proven otherwise.

I don't believe you, what you said here does not gel with the things you've said about the causes for the universe, some of which appears in this very thread re: intelligent creator.

And you are right not to, that's the point

as an a-naturalist, I technically make no claim, I just reject naturalism.

but to say I have 'no beliefs' is obviously false

Framing a belief in the negative; a-naturalism or a-theism- does nothing to change the beliefs themselves; theism or naturalism. The negative stance is just a semantic device to try to shift the burden of proof elsewhere.

Theists don't generally do this, because they are willing and able to defend their beliefs on their own merits- no need to try to claim 'default' status- there is no such thing here

I don't believe in spontaneous/ naturalistic explanations for life and the universe, no- but I'm perfectly willing to admit the obvious alternative- I believe they were probably intelligently designed.

[Bust Nak]

Framing a belief in the negative; a-naturalism or a-theism- does nothing to change the beliefs themselves; theism or naturalism. The negative stance is just a semantic device to try to shift the burden of proof elsewhere...

Objection, the point is atheism is the default so there is no burden of proof. An atheist is often just an atheist but an a-naturalist is almost universally also a supernaturalist.

Granted "I don't have beliefs" is a bit clumsy, but "having no beliefs on whether the world is created" isn't such a rare thing.

[Guy Threepwood]

Framing a belief in the negative; a-naturalism or a-theism- does nothing to change the beliefs themselves; theism or naturalism. The negative stance is just a semantic device to try to shift the burden of proof elsewhere...

Objection, the point is atheism is the default so there is no burden of proof. An atheist is often just an atheist but an a-naturalist is almost universally also a supernaturalist.

Granted "I don't have beliefs" is a bit clumsy, but "having no beliefs on whether the world is created" isn't such a rare thing.

likewise a-naturalism is a default position also, it just means you are skeptical of materialistic naturalism. period.

The burden of proof lies with naturalists to prove their beliefs in nature being fully accounted for by... nature. which is not only a positive assertion, it's a curiously paradoxical one! far from being a 'default'..

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence after all, I remain skeptical meanwhile- not such a rare thing

[Bust Nak]

ikewise a-naturalism is a default position also, it just means you are skeptical of materialistic naturalism. period.

That much is fine, but the point is still this: you are not just an a-naturalist, you are a supernaturalist.

The burden of proof lies with naturalists to prove their beliefs in nature being fully accounted for by... nature.

That's easy. Everything we can see, hear, smell, touch are material.

[Guy Threepwood]

ikewise a-naturalism is a default position also, it just means you are skeptical of materialistic naturalism. period.

That much is fine, but the point is still this: you are not just an a-naturalist, you are a supernaturalist.

you are not just an a-theist you are also a naturalist are you not?

But I don't consider myself a supernaturalist, the term 'supernatural' is explicit as a law in materialistic naturalism

i.e. your position of 'non belief' relies on a specific belief that renders the alternative as 'supernatural' and hence a forbidden hypothesis. you see the irony there!

A theist needs no such arbitrary restriction on their competition to win by default!

That's easy. Everything we can see, hear, smell, touch are material.

so not intelligence, or multiverses, M Theory, strings or much of quantum mechanics then

But we know creative intelligence is a real phenomena, whether it violates arbitrary materialist rules or not

[Aetixintro]

So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.

Hawking is talking about the uncertainty principle viz., it is is not possible to exactly know both the position and momentum of a particle.

Does anyone still deny the uncertainty principle? Not sure if they do. Let's test that.

Does belief in an omniscient God contradict the uncertainty principle?
Can the uncertainty principle be true and there still be God?

My religious view is this: Uncertainty Principle can't be true for God. God knows every outcome. However, we live in a b-i-g world and our small selves compared to God just have to use description, including probabilistics, chance, statistics, predictions this way and that for now. When our selves have become bigger, maybe we see bigger as well?

[Bust Nak]

you are not just an a-theist you are also a naturalist are you not?

Sure.

But I don't consider myself a supernaturalist, the term 'supernatural' is explicit as a law in materialistic naturalism

i.e. your position of 'non belief' relies on a specific belief that renders the alternative as 'supernatural' and hence a forbidden hypothesis. you see the irony there!

A theist needs no such arbitrary restriction on their competition to win by default!

No, not at all, for a theist to move beyond naturalism, they have a burden of proof. I have no idea why you think adding things on top of what we can see counts as a win.

so not intelligence, or multiverses, M Theory, strings or much of quantum mechanics then

Why not? Multiverses is debatible but ther rest are clearly material.

But we know creative intelligence is a real phenomena, whether it violates arbitrary materialist rules or not

So what's the problem?