Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Picking up where this relevant post left off from a now-closed thread on another controversial theory:
“Why are heavy things heavy things, ultimately? in a non-Deistic Universe? It's because God is pulling on them [more] ... ”
Occasionalism vs. the Standard Model of Particle Physics (QED (Quantum electrodynamics).
Occasionalism is an interpretation of the Standard Model.
Under occasionalism God Himself is directly responsible for all motion*, which is a term defined under the Standard Model’s lexical stance, and any Ph.D. physicist or any standard quality university introductory physics textbook will define motion there, under the Standard Model’s lexical stance.
What occasionalism thinks about Bell’s tests.
Occasionalism, under the Standard Model’s lexical stance wrt Bell’s theorem tests, believes God is non-local and hidden**. Under the Standard Model, all local variables, both hidden and non-hidden, have been ruled out as the cause for Bell’s test results. Also non-local non-hidden variables have also been positively ruled out.
The only variables Bell’s tests cannot rule out as causes of Bell’s test results, are non-local, and hidden (it has to be both, see above).
So what is gravity?
Under occasionalism, gravity is the characteristic pattern of motion where God moves everything toward greater and greater Mass (even Light itself, God moves toward Mass, under the Standard Model). God does this in an extremely precise and reliably repeatable way, you can set your watch to it. Like literally, a year is a year because of how reliably repeatable God moves everything, including the Earth, toward greater and greater Mass (c. viz., in the case of the Earth’s orbit, toward His Sun).
This is gravity, under occasionalism. So it isn’t a force, but because of how beautifully precise the motion is toward Mass, we can conceive of it as a force, and it would be profitable to do so, except c. during an Ascension (Our Lord) or assumption (Our Lady, Enoch, Elijah) to Heaven, or some other miracle that "violates the 'laws' of physics".
* With the exception of motion under our control. For example if a person, male or female or inter$&% or eunuch, lifts weights or sprints for exercise, you are not moving toward greater Mass, you are trying to do your own thing. If you obeyed gravity, you would be a couch potato and not exercise, so our goal isn’t to obey gravity like everything else does, that’s determinism, and what all atheists believe, unless they are moral realists.
** The lexical stance for philosophers of religion includes hiddenness, but it is another word with another meaning (just spelled and pronounced the same, and is in the same category of word (hidden is adjective or attributive predicates under both lexical stances), occasionalism doesn’t believe God is hidden, under philosophy of religion’s lexical stance ----- just under the Standard Model’s lexical stance.
en.wikipedia.org
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
I physically exist in the physical world. Do you? Physics. You can touch me, taste me, hear me, smell me, see me. I can't do any of those things. You can see the results of my actions in the physical. Yes. I see some words appear on the forum. You can't see the results of gravity as there...
theologyonline.com
“Why are heavy things heavy things, ultimately? in a non-Deistic Universe? It's because God is pulling on them [more] ... ”
Occasionalism vs. the Standard Model of Particle Physics (QED (Quantum electrodynamics).
Occasionalism is an interpretation of the Standard Model.
Under occasionalism God Himself is directly responsible for all motion*, which is a term defined under the Standard Model’s lexical stance, and any Ph.D. physicist or any standard quality university introductory physics textbook will define motion there, under the Standard Model’s lexical stance.
What occasionalism thinks about Bell’s tests.
Occasionalism, under the Standard Model’s lexical stance wrt Bell’s theorem tests, believes God is non-local and hidden**. Under the Standard Model, all local variables, both hidden and non-hidden, have been ruled out as the cause for Bell’s test results. Also non-local non-hidden variables have also been positively ruled out.
The only variables Bell’s tests cannot rule out as causes of Bell’s test results, are non-local, and hidden (it has to be both, see above).
So what is gravity?
Under occasionalism, gravity is the characteristic pattern of motion where God moves everything toward greater and greater Mass (even Light itself, God moves toward Mass, under the Standard Model). God does this in an extremely precise and reliably repeatable way, you can set your watch to it. Like literally, a year is a year because of how reliably repeatable God moves everything, including the Earth, toward greater and greater Mass (c. viz., in the case of the Earth’s orbit, toward His Sun).
This is gravity, under occasionalism. So it isn’t a force, but because of how beautifully precise the motion is toward Mass, we can conceive of it as a force, and it would be profitable to do so, except c. during an Ascension (Our Lord) or assumption (Our Lady, Enoch, Elijah) to Heaven, or some other miracle that "violates the 'laws' of physics".
* With the exception of motion under our control. For example if a person, male or female or inter$&% or eunuch, lifts weights or sprints for exercise, you are not moving toward greater Mass, you are trying to do your own thing. If you obeyed gravity, you would be a couch potato and not exercise, so our goal isn’t to obey gravity like everything else does, that’s determinism, and what all atheists believe, unless they are moral realists.
** The lexical stance for philosophers of religion includes hiddenness, but it is another word with another meaning (just spelled and pronounced the same, and is in the same category of word (hidden is adjective or attributive predicates under both lexical stances), occasionalism doesn’t believe God is hidden, under philosophy of religion’s lexical stance ----- just under the Standard Model’s lexical stance.