Talk:Escape hatch

"These range from testing the power of prayer (which invariably fails when tested fairly and rigorously)..."
how is it even possible to test ~the power of prayer~? okay, you could test the explicit proposition "if you pray, all of your wishes will come true" - which we hopefully understand is often straw-manning the core/monolithic message of All People Who Advise Others To Pray - but for how long is the obvious evidence debunking that going to sway anyone who would be credulous/desperate enough to take it seriously in the first place? the only even vaguely definable 'result' of prayer (assuming it's safe to set aside the midden of theological tropes) is in whatever byproduct might accrue from the focus the pray-er puts on their goal/crisis/whatever-the-fuck they're praying about, and whether that focus translates into confidence, anxiety, optimism, calm, dread, whatever (whether such a byproduct is helpful/misplaced/etc. under the circumstances is of course another matter entirely). what i'm saying, i guess, is that the parenthetical seems like a pointless (and not even witty) 'stab' at prayer unless it cites an actual study that began with a coherent premise ("prayer has some kind of measurable influence on something"? sorry if this shouldn't be a headscratcher)... 184.78.166.161 (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A simple Google brings up this as top answer and this as a Wikipedia article all about it. But you couldn't be bothered to google for yourself, eh? Placeholder (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

a poor argument and an ad hominem
1) When theologians say that God is "unkowable" they mean that is impossible for _finite mortals_ to reach _up_ and acquire understanding of God _by their own hand_; Now _God_ reaching _down_ and providing understanding _themself_ is a different story. Come to think of it this is actually a restatement of part of the purpose of the incarnation: humans can never hope to reach God on their own, so God had to come down and provide a ladder.

2)why are you guys calling bullcrap on the idea of something being "beyond time"? modern science has already established that some things are beyon time; black holes and photons do not experience time, for example.

3) I have several pertinent quotes form my favorite author, C.S. Lewis, on my deviantart journal. I have opted to post links to them rather than copy-pasting them in order to save space:

a&b) https://www.deviantart.com/sin-and-love/journal/Miracles-ch-13-and-God-in-the-dock-pt-1-sctn-7-550775594

c)https://www.deviantart.com/sin-and-love/journal/A-Christian-reply-to-Pr-Price-Phoenix-Quarterly-583683175

d)https://www.deviantart.com/sin-and-love/journal/Mere-Christianity-bk-1-ch-4-583693833

4)Even then, this entire article is one big Argumentum ad hominem, as it's attacking the motives of the arguer rather than the merits of the argument itself.Skadooshbag (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm only going to address the first point here since the other's require it to work. Not only can I understand God, if I was in his place I could do a better job than him. Not only that, literally any scientist or rationalist could do better than the Abrahamic god. Just because you can't understand your own position doesn't mean that others can't. 03:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)Oh really? you fully understand God in their entirety, do you? You, a finite entity, have enough room in your mind to fully grasp an infinite entity? SO the concept of the Trinity makes absolute perfect sense to you? That's like an ant saying it fully comprehends the inner thoughts of a genius-level human. Actually it's even worse than that, since the ant and the human are at least both Finite. 2)Sorry, but how does this article's nature as an ad hominem, the observations about the facts of science, and simple acknowledgment of the scientifically-established phenomenon of timelessness by themselves even require the pretense of God let alone the idea that human minds are insufficient to comprehend such a being?Skadooshbag (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Answers to concerns, ikanreed subsections
1) Mechanically, what is different in what happens in a person's head between arriving at their own analysis and being granted truth? It's special pleading to say that "it's just different" for god to grant understanding without approaching the question of what that difference actually entails.  Why could a human mind not decide exactly the same things without divine intervention?  Apologist answers to that question exist and I think the ones I've seen are all pretty lame, especially the one that says divine knowledge comes in through the penial gland.

2) I'm not sure what you mean by "experience time" here, but black holes absolutely change with respect to time, which is about as much experience as I expect inanimate objects to have.  t=100 a black hole's mass might be 30 stellar masses, and at t=2000 it might be 40.  You're being slippery with your definitions and I'd appreciate more clarity about what you actually mean when you use that phrase.

3) I cannot look at your links from this computer, sorry.

4) Motives and behaviors are important for establishing a pattern of refusing to address important points. And it's important to see that if someone sets themselves up to never accept the points of their interlocutors even if they have no sound reason to reject them raises an important question of whether they're worth talking to in the first place.  If you go to the effort to debunk a conspiracy theory, only for the proponent to instead declare you part of it, you'd be pretty annoyed too.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)Sorry, I should clarify what I meant. It is impossible for finite mortal beings to obtain a *complete* understanding of God on their own, as a finite mind obviously can only grasp concepts up to a finite level of complexity.


 * 2)Ask any astrophysicist and they'll tell you that neither photons nor black holes experience time. From the outside they appear to, but to them the entire length of their entire lifespan is experienced all at once as, to quote a Terry Pratchett character, "both a distant memory and a nasty surprise."


 * 3)well until you can find a computer where you can look at them, here's one of the shorter ones: "What cannot be trusted to reoccur is not material for science: that is why history is not one of the sciences. You cannot find out what Napoleon did at the Battle of Austerlitz by asking him to come and fight it again in a laboratory with the same combatants, the same terrain, the same weather, and in the same age. You have to go to the records. We have not, in fact, proved that science excludes miracles: we have only proved that the question of miracles, like the innumerable other questions, excludes laboratory treatment." -- 'A Christian reply to Professor Price', Phoenix Quarterly (Autumn 1946)


 * 4)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive
 * Let's focus on 1, since you didn't answer the question. Why is that different?  Seriously, define your fucking terms.  Hiding in ambiguity is lazy. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what the problem is. State which terms you need me to define.Skadooshbag (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A *complete* understanding is pretty demanding, but I'm not so sure whether it's inherently impossible for finite minds to grasp infinite complexity to an agreeable extent. Not that most would ever come close, with our slackadaisical attitude. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * God isn't an infinite entity, that's just a lazy excuse apologists hide behind. 23:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If God can create an infinity of creations, clearly there's something about God that's infinite. Also, argument by assertion doesn't suit you. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor Presuppositionalism you, but that's how things are. (Fun Fact, it's not argument by assertion when it's stating facts, i.e. you first have to prove God is real before you can prove he's infinite. Hell, you have to prove he's real before you can even prove he's a he!) 00:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I used a conditional sentence and didn't bring up God's presumed gender, so wrong again my friend. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah but you did! Since A) "God" refers to the Abrahamic deity (who is male), and B) (when the "g" is in lower case) is the label for a male deities in general. 00:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "God" can refer to any supreme deity, don't be so Abrahamic-centric. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "God" (with the big G) only refers to one deity, all others are called god, goddess, spirit, or deity. It is by it's very nature a label applied only to the Abrahamic god. And again, only refers to male deities in when used with a lowercase "g", so my previous point is still valid. 00:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So now you've gone from argument by assertion to argument by repetition. I could say I'm impressed by your insistence on this silly point, but frankly I'm just baffled. (Are you pulling my leg? You are aren't you.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the word "God" has both implicit and explicit meanings, both referring to a single specific deity. Perchance you need to crack open a dictionary? Or perchance an encyclopedia? Since "deity" is the proper generic term when referring to supernatural anthropomorphic immortals, hence the term "creator deity" rather than "creator God". Just because you are ignorant of proper terminology does not mean that others are as well. Just suck it up and say "My mistake, you are correct and I meant to say 'deity' since I was speaking in generic terms rather than specifically referring to any particular being." Or you could continue to double down and make yourself look foolish. 01:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ad dictionarium. And not a very good one, considering some dictionary definitions I've read. Oh well. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I will explain this one last time, since you appear quite determined to remain obtuse. "God" is a name and a title that one specific deity holds, "god" is a male deity, and a deity is any magical anthropomorphic being which is said to wield divine powers and may or may not be ascribed with creating the universe and/or life and/or the afterlife. For example, it would be incorrect to refer to Zeus/Jupiter as "God", even through he is the supreme deity of his pantheon, however it would be correct to refer to him as "a god" or "the king of the Olympian gods". Another example is calling a rat a mouse and vice versa. These are not mere semantics, but proper terminology. 02:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Rats are bigger, longer mice. Bulls are male cows. Birds are dinosaurs with wings. Words can flip between specific and less specific meanings at the flick of a switch. That being said though, I wouldn't consider Zeus as a supreme deity because he's not qualitatively different from other gods, he's just the one that gets to sit on the throne. Though those that worship him might disagree. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you see why I prefer the term "deity" when speaking in the abstract, with modifiers to describe the supposed attributes of said deity or deities. That being said, the idea of a singular creator deity is quite flawed numerous ways, including but not limited to infinite regress. A more plausible theoretical would be an entire race of deities who go through the same birth/life/death cycle as literally every other known form of life, though that still leaves the position of creator somewhat absent unless one theorizes that our universe is the equivalent of a petri dish to this theoretical race of beings, thus meaning that they would be polydeistic, though that idea still falls prey to infinite regress. 03:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And that's precisely where singular-creator-deity comes in, to stop the regress. They're by definition the primordial beginning of everything, so their origin needs no explanation (in fact, to talk about their origin is nonsensical silliness). The real question is what properties this starting point of reality would have, and how it relates to our current universe. (Though of course people are free to drown themselves in discussion over whether to call it God or not instead.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually the Primer Mover argument still falls into infinite regress through its very premise. (i.e. that everything must have a creator, no exceptions since that would invalidate the theory.) Further, the Prime Mover argument was originally developed by Thomas Aquinas to prove the Christian god, thus it carries that implicit baggage as well, whether or not that is the presenter's intent. 03:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually... (there's definitely flaws in the argument, but "God needs to have a cause too" isn't one of them.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a lot of people pointing out flaws in your old counter-argument, and you being unable to adequately counter those criticisms, so I'm unsure what that link is supposed to prove other than that you apparently ignored them. 04:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Um... try to read better? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Unless there's a secret message hidden in there somewhere I fail to see how those talkpage discussions save the Prime Mover argument. Further, I should actually clarify that my above theory doesn't actually forbid the use of infinite regress, so saying "that idea still falls prey to infinite regress" was somewhat misleading on my part and I apologize for such a poor choice of words. What I should have said is "infinite regress still applies." It should also be mentioned that I actually built the above theory via the failings of the Prime Mover argument, and that it succeeds (as much as any creation argument can succeed) where the Prime Mover argument can't. Note that I said "can't" not "doesn't", since the Prime Mover argument is bound by it's own self-refuting conclusion i.e.that a singular uncaused deity created the universe we inhabit, and thus forbids infinite regress, even though it's premise is that everything must have a cause, no exceptions, thus the "uncaused" deity must in turn have a cause (as per the premise), and so forth and so on ad infinitium. If you're willing to chuck aside the "unmoved mover" nonsense the viability of your theoretical models expands dramatically since you aren't (intentionally or unintentionally) implicitly attempting to prove the Abarhamic god, and thus are no longer bound by the restraints of such an agenda driven argument. 14:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)