>:O I think he's pulling your legs guys. Best let him stay beneath the bridge. — Thorongil

I have to agree with you. Either this is a very witty and clever use of reason (A suspected witch that drowned in a body of water is innocent) or we are enabling something we shouldn't.

Firstly, I would challenge you not to take Mr. Carroll's word as gospel, as much as any other person. I am no expert in the realm of thermodynamics, but as much as we see the science of the past as primitive, so might future generations look back on our own as such. There are many scientists in the corner of "time does not exist" to use such a bad cliche.

In terms of patterns and causes I have to disagree in terms of one event following another. For example, if you look at twin studies, you will find people who were separated at birth who have chosen the same occupation, hairstyles, lifestyles etc. This is despite the multitudinous differences in their upbringing. That is, they have created a pattern beyond the distinctions that we would attribute to human behaviour, and done so without a common cause. If you will, the epicentre of the pattern does not rely on a known chain of events. When we speak of causes, we must also mention correlation. Ice cream sales increase at the same time that shark attacks do. Do we blame ice cream for shark attacks? Or do we see that in Summer more people eat ice cream and swim in the ocean. In this way you cannot talk of patterns in the same light as causes. One is tied to a definite origin, where the other is the result of variety.

Chance and natural selection in the case of evolution is often misunderstood. I think the same is true in this case. You have not yet defined the god you are trying to prove exists, however it appears to be monotheistic... So which "god" are you trying to prove? One of the Greek gods? One of the Viking gods? All have given their followers art, music and military success. I once wrote a poem about a storm because of the sheer ferocity. So this must prove the existence of the storm? I have also read books that involved elves, goblins, dwarves, magicians and demons. Does this mean that all these things also exist? If so, I am excited. Bring it on.

Cause and effect implies a timeline that is congruent to our own. For the example of a ball travelling at x velocity in y circumstances, we perceive not only distance, but also the time in order to evaluate and project its course and location at a specific moment. I think what is most useful here is to take the assumption that everything happens at once. That is, time move forwards as easily as backwards, and it is only our perception and our conditioning to the scientific method that prevents the latter of these events from adhering to meaning. The ball has travelled in all locations already, but our mind's decipher meaning from the trajectory. My opinion on the underlying meaning is that the cause and effect is merely our interpretation of events, which are biased towards our own goals. An example is the results from any study being twisted to make multiple conclusions. The problem is that we cannot separate our mind from the analysis, and therefore by using causes, it only makes gives meaning to those who would agree with your perception. To delve a bit deeper, morality is constantly evolving, and not every country agrees with the death penalty. Only those who already agree with the death penalty can attribute a specific cause and effect with a crime.

This seems to be a rather tedious discussion. On the one hand you have someone who says that an effect, such as mythology on behaviour, is proof of existence. On the other you have logic that would discount this theory completely. It seems that the OP is not looking for evidence against their hypothesis, but affirmation that they have found "god" (lowercase because which one right?). My question to this is, if the OP regards theological thinking to be sound, how can a supernatural force make any measurable impact on the natural world? That is, the entirety of the inability to disprove a negative relies on the fact that we cannot be sure that a god does not exist. However, in this instance, for a measurable impact on the natural universe, this god must also be of this universe, and by our current understanding, this energy must not be able to leave the system. Thus, we must be able to conduct an experiment to test the existence of a god, which as to date has yielded no results. To me, this exercise merely proves that false logic exists. "Everything in this world is either a potato or not a potato" is just as useless as the reasoning behind the original premise.