The Case for God

[stahrwe]

I find myself in the unusual postion of not only agreeing with Robert Tulip but also feeling that he has expressed himself very well. Multiple realities, and quantum mechanics seem to be introduced into the discussion as a device, a shield to hide the argument. Normally, getting a PhD in a subject is not a prerequisite to having something explained to said person. A true expert in a subject should be able to explain the basics in an understandable way. Additionally, the 11 decimel places is not possible. No man-made device is capable of that accuracy, and even if it was the 'uncertainty principle' would be introduced by the attempt to measure something.

As for the questions about prayer:


Randall Young
I often think about a similar issue surrounding prayer. My aunt often engages a prayer circle, whenever people get seriously ill, or have some chronic problem. The idea is that the more people you get praying... Well, what exactly IS the idea, anyway? It's positively incomprehensible to me, except as a social phenomenon. What possible difference can it make to God how many people are praying for this or that particular action to occur? {stahrwe comment: Why do you think it makes a difference to God how many people are praying? Much of the benefit of prayer is a shared bond among participants.}Isn't it guaranteed A) that He listens, regardless, {stahrwe comment: yes}
and B) that He's going to answer all prayer,{stahrwe comment: yes}
and C) that He's going to take such action as maximizes the good, irrespective of the limited, parochial perspective our prayers by necessity are the expression of?{stahrwe comment: It depends on what you mean by this.}

[Randall R. Young]

A true expert in a subject should be able to explain the basics in an understandable way.

Alas, I am not a true expert. Feynman was, however. His explanation is that a photon (for example) needs to follow ALL the trajectories at once, if it is to get where it's going, and satisfy the statistics of an interference pattern. Only by summing ALL the histories do you arrive at the correct result. His explanation is that if you drop out of the equation any trajectories that are unobserved, there will be diffraction.

He also points out that nobody understands why this should be so:

"I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." ~Richard Feynman

But we do understand the rules for calculating it, nonetheless. And those rules seem to me (and him) to assume that the classical trajectory which we like to call "reality" is impossible to account for under the assumptions you and Robert seem to be making. ALL the alternate trajectories must be just as real as the one down the middle.

Additionally, the 11 decimel places is not possible.

From WIKI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure_constant

This measurement of α has a precision of 0.37 parts per billion. This value and uncertainty are about the same as the latest experimental results.[5]

OK, I'll allow that this measurement is only accurate to 10 decimals. The uncertainty (disagreement) is in the eleventh decimal place. Sorry to be so inaccurate! But stahrwe's "not possible" doesn't look too good, if you ask me!

[Randall R. Young]

I should say that Feynman's explanation took about an hour, so I hesitate to include it here. If you are interested, see:
http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

[stahrwe]

This measurement of α has a precision of 0.37 parts per billion. This value and uncertainty are about the same as the latest experimental results.[5]

OK, I'll allow that this measurement is only accurate to 10 decimals. The uncertainty (disagreement) is in the eleventh decimal place. Sorry to be so inaccurate! But stahrwe's "not possible" doesn't look too good, if you ask me!

[/quote]

Isn't it true that the current fractional uncertainty is delta alpha/alpha = 7.4 x 10^9?

Is it also not true that by measuring things we change them?

I am not sure what you are trying to explain by invoking QED, what does it have to do with the case for God.

If Feynman took an hour to explain it it isn't useful to this discussion. You need to distill his theory, or your interpretation of it to something of 100 words or fewer. It doesn't need to be a complete explanation, just; what it has to do with the case for or against God, and what QED has to do with it.

[Harry Marks]

On the prayer subtopic - this is one of those questions that encourages me in my view that God is a spirit, in the sense of "the spirit of Liberty" or "dis-spirited". If more people are praying, then more people are participating in the social network. And that means God is more likely to have whatever effect God has (apparently it is not always helpful to be prayed for, since it puts you under pressure to get well). If you think of God as primarily a "being" who is "out there" in the 23rd dimension, or whatever, then God makes up her own mind and we cannot influence it. But if you think of God as among us, exerting effects that are consistent in spirit but highly variable in tangible effects between individual cases, the number of people involved may quite literally increase the power of God.

I see the hand of God in such events as the Civil Rights revolution in the US in the 50s and 60s, and the peaceful transition to power from DeKlerk to Mandela. Would you say the number of people praying for these outcomes was irrelevant? I would not.

This is not to say we "own" God or can manipulate her like a magic wand. The rules of effective interaction with God pretty much demand an attitude of supplication and yielding. Other attitudes draw on other spiritual powers.

[Randall R. Young]

You need to distill his theory, or your interpretation of it to something of 100 words or fewer.

Well, that puts me out of this game, I suppose. Sorry to sidetrack your proceedings.

{stahrwe comment: Why do you think it makes a difference to God how many people are praying? Much of the benefit of prayer is a shared bond among participants.}I

To wit, I remarked that it was possibly a social phenomenon. Personally, I can't understand the rational of prayer, other than as a form of meditation; a chance to collect one's thoughts, and so on. The idea that God is going to alter His plans on the basis of such requests seems untenable, at best.

He's going to answer all prayer,{stahrwe comment: yes}

My cousin suggests that God answers all prayers with a 'yes', a 'no', or a 'maybe later'. Since this completely exhausts the space of possible answers, I find that any object at all gives one of these three answers, as well. So how can one determine which object or entity has given one the answer that pertains? How would the answers be different if one never asked at all?

[stahrwe]

You need to distill his theory, or your interpretation of it to something of 100 words or fewer.

Well, that puts me out of this game, I suppose. Sorry to sidetrack your proceedings.

{stahrwe comment: Why do you think it makes a difference to God how many people are praying? Much of the benefit of prayer is a shared bond among participants.}I

To wit, I remarked that it was possibly a social phenomenon. Personally, I can't understand the rational of prayer, other than as a form of meditation; a chance to collect one's thoughts, and so on. The idea that God is going to alter His plans on the basis of such requests seems untenable, at best.

He's going to answer all prayer,{stahrwe comment: yes}

My cousin suggests that God answers all prayers with a 'yes', a 'no', or a 'maybe later'. Since this completely exhausts the space of possible answers, I find that any object at all gives one of these three answers, as well. So how can one determine which object or entity has given one the answer that pertains? How would the answers be different if one never asked at all?

You claim that you cannot condense Feynman's theory into 100 words. I might turn the tables on you and say that you are asking that the complex subject of prayer is too hard to condense too. One of the complaints I make at BT is that those who come here with the prejudices firmly established are not willing to subject them to the challenge of reading the Bible. Not ad hoc, a verse here, a verse there, but a reading of the material. Many of the issues raised have answers. Is prayer important to God? Does it influence His actions? Consider this verse:

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of [perfumes], which are the prayers of saints.

[Randall R. Young]

Taking your point, I suggest that the rational thing to do would be to let go of the "100 words or less" restriction.

I read the Bible, including that part. However, like that part, it doesn't exactly jump off the page and shout "I'm sensible!" It's more like a peyote vision; Very colorful, very striking--but not very useful or rational. At least, not to the standards of utility I attach to quantum field theory.

[Randall R. Young]

For instance, are the prayers of saints more worthy, more listenable, than your average prayer? Are they the "gold standard" of prayer? What makes one prayer more golden than another, and what makes it answerable? (In the affirmative, that is... The other answers aren't really germane, I'd think.)

Feel free to unilaterally relax your 100-words-or-less stricture, if the spirit moves you.

[stahrwe]

For instance, are the prayers of saints more worthy, more listenable, than your average prayer? Are they the "gold standard" of prayer? What makes one prayer more golden than another, and what makes it answerable? (In the affirmative, that is... The other answers aren't really germane, I'd think.)

Feel free to unilaterally relax your 100-words-or-less stricture, if the spirit moves you.

No need to relax the 100 words. Prayers of saints aren't exactly the gold standard, all others are not heard. What makes one heard and the other not is the relationship with God the person has chosen.