September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« The Judgment that Led to Salvation | Main | Not Genocide, but Capital Punishment »

September 07, 2011

Comments

Wow.

Thanks for posting this. Amen and Amen.

That was riveting. Thanks for posting it.

Great story about how God is involved in our daily life.
Does anyone know how I can get a printed copy of this testamony?

Boyd M.

Boyd says God's involved here.

If you think so please tell me how you think this works.

Tom McGuinness, did he played a role?

Mohamed Atta, did he play a role?

The work rules at AA, did they play a role?


RonH

Please explain particle-wave dualism. Exactly how does that work?

It you can't I guess it isn't true.

Artie, anybody,

An interesting challenge. I guess I can explain it.

A particle an element of a physical model. So is a wave. Each is a list of properties: mass, charge, etc., and nothing more.

These theoretical elements are meant to represent what we think is a real thing in the world - an electron for example.

Because we use the same word to refer both the model element and the thing in the world it is easy to forget that they are two different things: The theoretical element is not the thing in the world.

This is true for particle, wave, and any other such word.

That's waves and particles.

===

In some situations the electrons of the world look like the particles of the particle-theory; in other situations the electrons of the world look like the waves of the wave-theory.

That's the duality part: each model has situations where it performs better. That's it. That's all. Not mysterious. Not profound. In my view.

The duality is between the models.
The duality is not a property of the thing in the world.

The particle of models is an idea inspired by mentally shrinking something like a billiard ball.
The wave of models is an idea inspired by the waves of water.

If someday someone is somehow inspired to come up with a single theory that outperforms the existing team of two theories, particle-wave duality might become a subject only for the history of science. But maybe the world just doesn't contain anything that can inspire a human in such a way.

==

That is what I think about particle-wave duality and why. I'm unaware of anything that makes particle-wave duality more real than this. But maybe it is.

Maybe you can find different explanations, someone to say mine is wrong, someone that says nobody can explain particle-wave duality. It doesn't matter.

I just asked "how you think this works".

To me, the mortal cast seems sufficient: Tom McGuinness, Mohamed Atta, American Airlines, etc.

If the mortal cast seems insufficient to you, why is that?
What is it about the story that you think they can't provide?

RonH


The very existence of the universe in which the mortal cast lives is not sufficiently explained without God.

Jesse,

Thanks.

If what you say is true then it is true every day. I know about that. And Boyd does say God is involved in our daily life.

But they didn't make the video about daily life; they made it about 9/11.

And, Boyd says the video shows how God is involved. That's what I'm asking about.

Was God unusually active on 9/11? Did God intervene in an unusual way in Scheibner's life in particular on that day? Are particulars of the story that the mortal cast can't account for?

That's the aspect of the beliefs that y'all hold that I'm trying to ask about.

RonH

By the way,

Suppose God is, as you say, necessary to explain the existance of the universe. Do you believe God could have created and withdrawn?

Do you believe he could have withdrawn but chose not to. Do you have a belief about why?

Does he have rules of engagement? If so and he chose them, then how did he choose? To what end?

Peter is his son. Steve Scheibner was the man who was supposed to fly the plane is who is talking in the video. God is SO GOOD!

Thanks for the clarification Kristen, I previously watched the video and didn't notice the inconsistency but when I went back to see what your post was about it is clear that Peter produced this piece for college credit. Well done by him, notwithstanding the close tie with the subjects. I hope he gets due credit for it.

Hey RonH, what is "the mortal cast"?

I googled the term and found nothing and have not heard it previously.

That would be Steve Scheibner. Peter is his son.

Hi Brad,

See above: Tom McGuinness, Mohamed Atta, American Airlines, etc.

I guess the etc. should really stand for anything that's not supernatural.

Ron


Hi RonH, ok I think I see what you are meaning so it's pretty much like the Bible tells us. Those who reason from the first principle that God is not will make sense of the world the best way they can by reasoning built upon the proposition that a God is not necessary to explain things.

Those who do reason from the first principle that God IS make sense of the world with reasoning built upon that proposition.

The most coherent of the two systems is the Christian one, but we've been having this conversation for a long while.

If one continues to suppress the truth in unrighteousness he'll be satisfied with the worldview that has logical gaps that cannot be closed by his system, but nonetheless he ignores this inconvenience and then proclaims his faithfulness to reason.

This is not new, see Deut. 29, you'll see that the participants in the Exodus who saw all the power of a Sovereign Lord--that is by sensation yet not attribute the miracles to a supernatural cause. Specifically vs. 4 says a lot about this.

You ask Jesse if God is just idle or is He active--the scriptures reveal that no thing happens that He isn't overseeing.

Brad,

OK, I'll put my original question in your terms:

What are the 'logical gaps' in my understanding of the story told in the video?

And another variation on the original:

Boyd says

Great story about how God is involved in our daily life.
Ok, how is God invloved in our daily life?

And a new one:

If Tom McGuinness's son makes a video about how his dad came to die on 911, is anybody going to say

Great story about how God is involved in our daily life.
?

In other words, I'm asking for particulars about the believe. If it seems like I'm just denying the belief, maybe we could deal with that after I learn these particulars?

RonH

Hi RonH, I think your question about the accounting of everyday occurances to God being involved in everyday life is one that deserves answer. I dont think I'm going to answer it the same way as what Boyd or many ohters would answer since I think they intend the meaning to be that a good event can be attributed to God when I'd just as soon say that Atta's et al actions were just as superintended by God as was the American Airlines pilot scheduling protocol that spared Steve Scheibners life on that day. This doesn't mean that thanks aren't in order.

Oh, I gotta go to a 16th birthday dinner for my daughter, I'll check back later to follow up.

RonH,

Consider, for instance, the account of Joseph. His brothers intended to kill him, but instead sold him into slavery. Through a highly improbable sequence of events, Joseph went from slave to a very powerful Egyptian leader, leading to his family (and many more) being saved from a severe famine. After all was said and done, he told his brothers "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives" (Genesis 50).

Are the actions of the brothers and the rest of the 'mortal cast' sufficient to explain what happened here? It may be correct and sufficient in one sense. However, Joseph didn't seem to think so. Does his say-so somehow prove God was involved? I suppose not. (Neither does the video in the OP prove God's involvement.)

Now consider, if I come across a boiling kettle in the kitchen and ask "why is there boiling water on the stove?" is it sufficient to say that covalent bonds in the methane are broken, etc, raising the water's temperature to the point that, etc, etc...? That explanation may be correct and sufficient in a sense--just as the 'mortal cast' may be sufficient to explain their stories. Now if somebody says that the kettle is boiling because my wife wanted tea, does it prove she was involved? I suppose not.

There could be endless alternative explanations. Maybe this informant is lying. Maybe the kettle spontaneously materialized, water condensed from the air, and a wind blew through the kitchen turning on the stove. It's possible, right? If the materialistic explanation for the origin of the universe is correct, why not? Which is more strange? A wee little kettle of boiling water popping into existence out of nothing or an entire universe popping into existence out of Nothing?

RonH,

In retrospect, I'm not sure if my post helps your search for particulars or 'rules of engagement'; I'll have to spend more time studying that. By the way, this is a good question, and though I'm sure I frequently come across as annoyed, I do appreciate the opportunity to be challenged in what I believe.

-Jesse

The comments to this entry are closed.