What if God foreknew human reactions?

I imagine it would be irrelevant to establishing god exists at all.
By absolute truth you mean what? Truth that cannot be demonstrated? Truth that is self evident? I do not understand the meaning of what absolute truth is. Can you elaborate on the implication of the phrase "absolute truth"?

Catholic Scientist But is there an existence,to us as humans, that is seperate from evidence for such? Can we seriously contemplate existence of something that does not leave a trace? If so, any expalnation is just as valid as god.In fact it leaves the realm of explanation altogether.

Phatboy I do not in the least doubt the sincerity of your beliefs.My point is this is the crux of the matter in many ways.That something you believe in can both be subjectively accesed yet remain aloof of evidence is not persuading to me is all.I can only go by the rational inherent in my makeup to arrive at the conclusions I do.

b.b. A tsunami is a far cry from a standing wave b.b. If the red sea parted and held motionless this would be against the laws of physics and would indeed be evidence of unnatural forces or at the very least a huge gap in our understanding. Donna and Ethel came back to back in 1960 as did Carla and Hattie in 1961Back to back hurricanes in consecutive years and here we are almost half a century later and no end of the world yet. Hurricanes are not the vengence of god but the result of the circulation of heat and moisture in the earth's atmosphere due to solar energy input to earth. The mechanisms are surprisingly well documented.Take a trip to wikipedia and investigate for yourself. What led you to believe that you were under protection sir?This message has been edited by sidelined, Sun, 2005-09-25 11:17 PM

Catholic Scientist We know of four forces in nature. In order of strength they are{1}The strong force which binds the nucleus of atoms. It operates over extremely short distances of 10^-15 meters. By definition it is assigned the strength of 1.{2}The electromagnetic force which is essentially the entirety of your world and responsible for the colors you see, the nerve impulses in your brain that allow you to think and feel and anything you care to imagine except the force of gravity. It has a strength on the order of 1/137 that of the strong force,however it operates over infinite distance in accordance with the inverse square law.{3}This is followed by the weak force who's strength is one-millionth that of the strong but without which the nuclear fusion of the sun would not occur. The range of this force is even less than that of the strong force at 10^-18 meters.{4}And then we have gravity who's range is also infinite but who's strength is staggeringly infinitesimal at 10^-39 that of the strong force. It takes a mass the size of planet earth to have enough gravitaional force to pull an apple from a tree only after the stem is weak enough.How hard is it for you to do so?We can measure the properties of these forces quite well and the problem for you to show occurs in explaining how anything manifests itself to human experience without trace since any means that attends to the senses we possess need involve manipulation of one or more of these forces. In order to manipulate such forces it is reasonable to assume that a force of greater strength must be somehow used. Failing that you must show that there is some means by which these forces can be manipulated without leaving a trace. We can contemplate them only as a consequence of evidence that we already possess. Since the features between A and C show similarity we can reasonably infer the existence of B. The lack of a transitional can be due to the rarity of fossil formation or even due to the problems inherent in classification standards.

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

Catholic Scientist Without trace would be that which did not manipulate the fundemental forces since in order to do so it would need introduce a new force of greater strength which itself would be detectable. Human experience is the result of the fundemental forces and therefore only a force of greater strength introduced to manipulate them would itself be detectable. It would not be subjective but measureable as a distinct force seperate from the four we know of. If it is measureable it is of course objectively verifiable. If you are aware of it subjectively it must be measureable since your subjective reality is dependent upon the fundemental forces. It therefore follows that a manipulation of your senses are of necessity done so by a force. This force would be objectively measureable since force is by definition a measure of mass acceleration. Any change in the fundemental forces must involve a change in the mass acceleration. As I previously explained you cannot manipulate a fundemental force without objectively altering the properties of the force. {mass acceleration} If you subjectively experience something that experience is itself is a manifestation of the fundemental forces. Your very thought proceses are electromagnetic as are your dreams. Your reality is the manifestation of these forces.Now if we have an alteration of your subjective experience and it leaves no trace then the explanation follows that the experience was not real but imagined. Yet that imagined reality is a result of your brain processes which are the manifestation of the electromagnetic force.
To imagine something via the manifestation of the electromagnetic force that is not real in the sense of manipulating the fundemental forces is perfectly consistent with the subjective experience being a result of the fundemental forces. If we contend that, no ,we know it was something actual we face the conundrum of explaining how this can be so and explain as well how it could not be imagined instead.

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

Catholic Scientist I do not lnow if it has to be but it just so happens it is. Of course there could be something it just would be unable to manipulate the fundemental forces without leaving a trace. The issue though is your response earlier to the discussion between Phatboy and DominionSeraph . To this you replied Now science is only able to make models of that which appears to conform to the world around us.I asked you what you meant by absolute truth you said A god which does not make himself known is no different than no god at all. It is just as consistent to postulate sentient slimy toadstools sprinkling fairy dust as the arbiters of the universe if we allow being existent without evidence. There is no gain in practical or theoretical knowledge nor any progression of answers or even questions from such a posiition. I am sorry C.S. but this is a further step into quagmire that does not have a reasonable need. We are now going to seriously contemplate thee premise of a fictional movie? No we are having to postulate beyond the sense of it.Of course a perfect illusion would be,by definition, undetectable but so what? An undetectable perfect illusion is reality to those within it.
However the assumption of a god in charge of a perfect illsion shatters both. If we can postulate such a god then the illusion is not perfect hence the god in charge of a perfect illusion is out of a job as well. Now we are finally on to something. If it is an experience it has to operate from within the fundemental forces. Please share with me what it is that you are experiencing and let us explore it. Perhaps we can do it in the chat room or via email as this is tending to drift off topic.

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

Catholic Scientist Why would we persue that which does not evidence itself? If you cannot know about an afterlife until you die what would be the use of wondering if such exists while you are alive? It cannot matter in the least while you are living.Beyond this I am well aware of the need some have to seek the comfort of hoping for such things especially when life is violent or tragedy occurs. This is the common thread for all,the hurt we feel from time to time,but we are what we are,human. The need for such things does not dictate that such things are true, however it does help ease some people's existential angst. Certainly one may entertain this feeling that one has experienced god, however, this does not mean that such is the case, Again the word feeling arises and this sensation that you experience is the result of fundamental forces {electromagnetism} that allow the sensation of feeling. Are you hinting that you have detected something that cannot be evidenced? If so please explain how this can be made aware to your senses without trace.

DominionSeraph If you cannot distinguish the illusion from the reality why would you assume there is a holodeck? That you can imagine such means that the effort to afford a perfect illusion can be circumvented and therefore the illusion can no longer be perfect.Of course there are no problems in the makeup of the real world because there is no illusion being portrayed and you are able to assume such without violating some secret conspiratorial agenda designed to keep you in the dark. Nature only needs to be asked the right questions in order to see the subtleties it holds.Our instruments ,intellect, and mathematics reveal fascinating relationships and interconnectedness, but also mystery that requires no assumptions of "background" that violates the rules that we find as we investigate the world.This message has been edited by sidelined, Sat, 2005-10-01 12:50 AM

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

Catholic Scientist But you can have no evidence of this being the case and much evidence that does not sync with a magical world such as heaven and hell. We may as well say that the men who flew the planes into the WTC and the pentagon were correct for taking that way to their reward of virgins as it is just as capable of defeding on these grounds of What if? Well,fess up partner, what have you witnessed as a reason to conclude god exists? So because you think god exists means that he does exist? Do you think that because you can think of something this automatically verifies it as existing? You can tell I am confused here and need a clarification. I must ask how you can have a physical sensation of a non-physical component that you state is connected to you through your consciousness which itself is also physical in origin. But a tree falling in the forest leaves evidence to show there was sound regardless of whether a human was there to be aware of it.
I must clarify what you are meaning by feelings? What occurs to you when they happen? But your subjectivity is also physical and a consequence of the workings of your physical brain. Judgements are yours and yours alone. I merely walk through life debating people that I might stir their gray matter to see things in a different light. A fresh perspective from me need not affect your faith or it may indeed cause you to doubt the validity of your perspective,which is yours to deal with.This message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2005-10-10 03:38 PMThis message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2005-10-10 03:39 PM

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

Ben Of course. The confusion here is occuring in the proposal of the existence of god as being realeven in the absence of evidence. This is true if you are living in a world where a perfect illusion of existence is not the case. Look at it this way. God has put together a world where god wants us to worship him and then makes it impossible to determine if god exists or not. Then along come certain individuals who say the reason you cannot evidence him is that you are being tested for your faith in god.
Now others say well this makes sense. God has set together a perfect ilusion of his/her non-existence and this is the explanation that is accepted in order to validate an otherwise incomprehesible conflict.The error here lies in the people who brought forth the explanation of the faith as the reason for the lack of evidence because the logic falls apart since a perfect illusion of no god would by definition not allow for this assertion {faith as the reason for lack of evidence} since if we can figure out this to be the reason then the illusion was not perfect because we have learned what god was doing after all.We might also ask how it came to certain individuals that they were able to ascertain that this faith is the answer to the question of non-evidence. If we state that they were special and had communication with god then again there is a conflict because these people did not learn of god through faith but by evidence. They then turn around and tell others that the reason for the lack of evidence is to test faith, a faith they are not required to adhere to?If this is confusing please ask so that I may clarify in further posts since I am just off work and tired and finding it difficult to concentrate.Later

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.