|
Hi Harv,
***There's a lot more quantum events going on in the world then in the classical world. Why not let Him work at the classical level?***
Because it would violate the laws of physics so you couldn't have a physical universe if he did that. Your question is just like asking, Why not let people violate the rules when playing chess? After all, by so doing they could get out of some tight spots. The answer is that if you allowed violation of the rules, which is certainly possible, you would no longer have a game of chess. It's as simple as that.
***That possesses problems for Him in terms of physical laws?, then we won't ask Him to violate any. Just swoop down from the sky and force a terrorist to land a plane gently so that no one is killed, or have Him simply tell the authorities before they even get on the plane.***
"Swoop"? "Force"? Which of the four known forces do you propose he use? And how would he do so without violating the laws of physics?
***I think He could do that if He's able to manipulate zillions and zillions of quantum events. Heck, if He prefers manipulating quantum events, then why doesn't he manipulate the quantum events in our brain to act a little smarter in cases where immanent danger is coming?***
I think he does do that. All the time. In spades. I think it is absolutely astounding each time any of us animals simply survives another day. Imagine being given the job of programming a robot, say of a squirrel, to do what a typical squirrel does in a typical day. Find nuts, avoid dogs, squirrel something away for the future, etc. In observing squirrel behavior, it is a lot easier for me to imagine that there is some conscious driver animating the squirrel by manipulating quantum events in the squirrel's brain than it is to imagine that there is a program sophisticated enough to deal with myriad squirrel situations that somehow got booted into that squirrel's brain.
***For example, He should pay attention to whatever is in Osama's head and then warn everyone else before he does his evil, He can at least do that, right?***
Wrong. The problem is that when he is in there driving Osama, he is oblivious to whatever is in anyone else's head. Furthermore, the information available to him via the on-board computer (Osama's brain) has been distorted and confused as a result of Osama's history. He's doing the best he can with what he has available.
***Okay, there's plenty of flies on the walls that he can tune into to hear of dastardly plots and then warn the right people.***
C'mon Harv, get real. Flies don't understand English (or any other language). And even if they did, they can't communicate with us. And even if they could, nobody would listen to them anyway. You have to keep in mind that the only ears god has to hear things with at the macro level here in our world, are our ears.
***But, if He can do that, then why doesn't he just put the thought in our heads to tell us that this is what He's doing? Why does He go so far out of His way to keep us guessing?***
A long time ago, you asked this same question in a different form. You asked, "How does God communicate with us?". At that time I answered: "With great difficulty." I think there is such a great disparity between our world and existence at higher levels, that it is extremely difficult to communicate very much that is meaningful with our limited sequential languages and our limited brains. It is tantamount to explaining a nuclear reactor to an ant.
Nonetheless, I think he does put thoughts into our heads in the form of conscience. I also think he attempts to communicate directly to some people via direct revelations, ouija boards, mediums, and who knows what else. Of course all of these are unreliable and subject to misunderstanding and distortion. As a result, we have the myriad religious sects we do each claiming that they have captured some true information. I think that the only thing we can depend on from all of that cacaphony is a few simple directives like, love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemies, do good to those who hurt you, etc.
***How come I'm the only guy who gets into trouble trying to rationalize 'all of this'?***
I don't understand what you are getting at, Harv. I don't think you have gotten into trouble any more than any of the rest of us who try to rationalize 'all of this'. Just think of poor Galileo. Or Bruno.
***I don't know if you would consider this, but generally I think you might have the right concept but the wrong approach. The concept that God is 'becoming' into being through his universe makes some sense to me (process theology). I just think that you've anthropomorphized this a little more than my taste buds can muster.***
Now there's a turnaround. Not long ago, you beat me down with the idea that you cannot consider mathematical concepts that are devoid of meaning. You claimed that all concepts, no matter how esoteric, are suggested or colored by real life experiences. As I see it, anthropomorphizing is simply a way of imparting a little of our experience onto profound concepts that would otherwise be too abstract for us to make any sense of. How come your taste buds are so discriminating in this case, but yet you demanded all those herbs and spices be sprinkled on mathematical axioms?
Warm regards,
Paul |
