Deism in the Dock

WAHAHAHAHA. Beautiful.I'm so chuffed you wrote that and got away with it. No - I'm not being mean, because many atheists here aren't smug in the least, I could name atleast fifteen. But a few here deserve that, but they'd never admitt it, BECAUSE of it!But seriously Straggler, it's good to see you have an outburst. So many of us pretend we know it all and secretly hide these thoughts. We feel it is our duty to pretend we are omniscient, or our position isn't perfect. I could do with cutting out my logical-know-it-all horseshit.In a way you are very right about all of these positions, as a Theist I find myself becoming a theodicist, because of evil existing. Yes, the fact itself seems to diminish any justification - all I can say is that I choose to be Theist no matter how painful. It's all because of the human experience - animals don't have these problems. I think it's healthy that you're open-minded.I'd like to hear Crashfrog's excuse for the higgs boson.

Couldn't we say the same for God? It seems that in science circles, more credence goes to some assumptions, than others.thus, if God exists, God has an enormous effect on the world around us.

1. No evidence for God.
2. Evidence against.Ofcourse, what evidences God, and what evidences NOT God, is not stated, so what am I to make of that statement Shraffrog?I know what evidences God! MASS!

I can't see how it is possible to find evidence against God, because God is not falsifiable. And if MY memory serves me correctly, this is something that YOU said many many years ago - that God is not falsifiable.I am not saying you are wrong in your claims, I am just convinced that evidence for or against God can't ever be known. People can only estimate what would or would not evidence him.An atheist will say that suffering is evidence against a benevolent God. A theist will say that it isn't. How can anyone establish evidence for or against God, when because he isn't factual, infinite argument for or against him seems possible. Evidence becomes a matter of opinion because he is by definition, transcendant to science and logic.If God can do anything, then it could be argued that he could make evidence against himself.As Dan Carroll would ask; what is God?

Do you mean the particle that can't be observed? Is that by human eyes or transcendant supernatural ones? Crash, you ae assuming you are correct, and it is actually evidence against God.If science can detect such a particle, then God's eyes can, perhaps? Otherwise - you wouldn't know about such a particle.

It doesn't prove it. Logically, if the assumption is that God is always observing it, then you could not differentiate the default position with the observed position. Thus your calculation, if it was 0.2, would be 0.2 with or without God.If X particle has always been observed by Z entity, then the reference is the same to you as if X particle had never been observed by Z entity.So you MUST assume it is never being observed by God. You can't infer that our observation, by natural means, is the same as the observation, by supernatural means.For all you know, there would be a change again, if God stopped observing. Kind of like a thief who steals a ten pound note from your piggy bank. If there is a change in the amount, after he takes the money, then unless I know the original amount, you can not know whether there was another thief.Forgive me, but I have a terrible neck-ache, and must refrain from participation for a while.

So the theory would not allow God, who we must assume created a particle, if we are to assume God, would not allow God to observe it? I doubt very highly that the theory would state sucha thing, with such limited information.Unless you have knowledge of supernatural transcendant capabilities, you can not infer anything ABOUT supernatural transcendant abilities. This logical law disallows your inference. For all we know - it is quite possible for a transcendant entity to gaze upon a particle within a system it is transcendant to.You only have knowledge of the particle, the theory, and a humans' observation.I have no knowledge of this matter. All I have is my wits, and the information you have gave me;1. There is a particle which changes when observed or detected by humans. (there is no evidence that another observer would have the same effect) (You have kept your cards close here, as to not give any extra information to me, so as to put me in the position of ignorance=wrong.)
2. Therefore God can't be observing the particle always.This is far from self evident to me.1. You can only calculate the "difference" when WE observe it.
2. You can not know as to A). God created it to not detect him. B). It can be observed by a transcendant entity.This is why "proof", is heavy terminology. You should have stayed with "evidence", but then, this a very weak evidence at best.This matter, is, at best, in regards to God - technical conjecture based on very limited information. There is no proof here that God can not observe this particle, because of the facts I shown you; that you can only calculate the difference from when it was discovered, whereas God could be the first thief, still observing it.Tell me how the theory could know that God hasn't always observed the particle, when the results can only give us something that came AFTER his un-ending gaze?For all we know, the change when we observe it, is evidence that God knows you're looking at him, hence the difference is evidence that God is detecting an observer.

Yes - I "see" that a lot at times. It is annoying. There are a LOT of theists who are generally lazy-thinkers. In my experience, Christians can be the worst of them, and only have very poor fallacious arguments.Sometimes theists have the same conclusions. They share many - but they have different arguments. So the one who does think is lumped in there with the ones who have the stupid arguments.I am glad to see you be honest about this though, and tell it like it is.