[–] Bfwilley 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That's all well and good but op does not address the flexibility and malleability of Space, Time, Mass and Energy let alone take in account pasta and it's affects.

-The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

May your gravy always be sauce and your pasta be al dente. Go in Parmesan, mangiare.

[–] AdelaisNjall [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

And may your meatballs always be salty

[–] SurfinMindWaves 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Things react within certain parameters. When you look at a cat it doesn't just snap into being a dog because you observed it. If a God created this system to express all potential expressions of matter, then we are still fully within the realm of a closed system.

[–] AdelaisNjall [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If we assume a 0-sum system you cannot change anything anywhere without inadvertantly changing something else somewhere else If we assume a open-ended-system anything is possible and all rules go out the window(thus a local reality cannot be open ended or it would be just total chaos and nothing meaningfull could exist in it)

So if any god wanted to interact with the system either by observing or actively changing it he could not do that from the "outside" he would have to "materialize" him self in it and obey all the rules inherent to the system, ergo neither you nor god can look at a cat and change it into a dog(so there is no room for an "allpowerful" deity in a closed system)

[–] SurfinMindWaves 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I've seen a few weird things in my life that defied my understanding of physics, so in my own experience I am convinced that we have little understanding about what the rules are. To logic my way through determining if it is possible for a god to exist in a closed system I would have to understand all the known parameters, which with my tiny human brain is impossible. When I was younger I felt that same kind of longing to make sense of this existence, but as I got older I had to accept that this system is far too complex for me to put up walls and feel confident in my apprehension of reality. I will gracefully back out of this discussion and leave it to more philosophical types to argue the logistics of godliness.

[–] c128 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

"No particle of mass/energy can have an absolutely determinable full set of properties."

No nonphysical, comprehensive, universal, dogmatic, proposition such as that can have its "truth," as it were, warranted on the basis of the comprehensive, universal, dogmatic denial of the existence, anywhere, of the Infinite, Personal, All-Knowing, All-Controlling, All-Conditioning, Self-Sufficient, Self-Revelatory God.

[–] AdelaisNjall [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

So to sum up what you are trying to say "everything is everything and nothing is nothing" which does not prove or disprove anything

[–] c128 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That bears no resemblance to what I said. What I'm saying is that no proposition can be warranted on your worldview.

[–] Scruffy_Nerfherder 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

There was a time when we could mathematically prove that bumblebees couldn't fly. They told us to fuck off and flew anyway.

[–] AdelaisNjall [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

A false positive does not prove a false negative

[–] Waiyu_Dudat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It seems you're trying to put physical constraints on metaphysical principles.

How is it math (metaphysical) can interact with our physical existence with any degree of certainty? The math itself is still certain yet it's expression within the physical world exists within variable parameters.

The physical realm is the realm that is in constant flux and changing, hence quantum mechanics and interactions causing change. However, observing and using metaphysical principles doesn't cause them to change. 2+2=4 will always be just that. The physical evidence expressed here in our realm doesn't change the eternal metaphysical principle behind it.

[–] AdelaisNjall [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Our current main-stream understanding of physics is so limited that it's really hard to say what can be possible or impossible at all. Especially since most normal people only think in terms of Newtonian physics and have no clue about Relativity or even less Quantum not to mention such theories as E8

[–] Waiyu_Dudat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm not talking physics.

I mean physical. Something material. Atoms are material. They have uncertainty. Everything material is in constant flux.

However,, math and the laws that govern it, logic and meta-logic, the laws of music, the concept of a "self", these are all metaphysical. They exist in a meta realm "above" our physical realm.

This is Aristotle's metaphysics. We are in philosophy after all, not science. Science is a tool for explaining the physical. It reaches its limit when you try to ask questions like "where do the laws of logic exist and why are they what they are?" (Metalogic).

Physical realm - uncertain because everything is in constant motion, tiny expressions of a large concept that must be explained over time.

Metaphysical realm - eternal, unchanging, everything all at once, such as the Mandelbrot.

[–] antiracist 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

God is only required to know what is knowable. If some quantum whatever is unknowable, God is exempt from knowing it.

[–] AdelaisNjall [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The "give me 1 mirracle and I'll explain the rest" excuse is already taken by the "Big Bang" theory

[–] SyriansAreTerrorists 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You're thinking about this way too hard. Religions were invented thousands of years ago by bronze-age savages and everything supernatural in the various holy texts can be empirically disproven by science. Only a low-IQ degenerate would subscribe to religion after the year 1500.

There's no excuse to be religious in the 21st century besides being mentally handicapped.

[–] AdelaisNjall [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I am not taking religion here that is why I posted this under /philosophy not /religion - I could have even post this under /(meta)science