51. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #308236 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Comment #308233 by Brian English

Would a couple of strong Norwegian Christmas beers do the trick?

52. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #308228 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 29, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Comment #308226 by Brian English

My soul is in your possession, so the ultimate responsibility for anything I post belongs to you.

53. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #308225 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 29, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Comment #308223 by Quetzalcoatl

The Sun was more active than expected in 2005. The very same year Spain legalized same-sex marriage. Coincidence? I think not.

54. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #308220 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 29, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Comment #308211 by decius

Are moonquakes caused by homosexual activities, too? And if so, why? They can't harm sinners, at least not yet.

You have answered your own question. Moonquakes cannot harm sinners, so they are obviously not caused by homosexual activity. Gays are, however, to be held responsible for any nearby supernovae or gamma ray bursts, and I think also their sinful conspiracy might cause fusion rates in the Sun to increase and speed up its transition to the red giant phase.

55. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #308206 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 29, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Comment #308100 by David A Robertson

Oystein - it is the standard question and it is a good one. I would argue that sin, free will, the Cross and Christ all come into the answer.

Would you care to explain your solution in more detail?

Would you recognise that there is such a thing as evil? And how should it be dealt with?

Let me repeat: The problem of evil concerns the consistency of the belief in an all-powerful, all-good god. My view is simple: mentally healthy people tend to think that pain is bad. Therefore we should work as hard as we can to eliminate it whenever and wherever possible.

56. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #307825 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 28, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Comment #307811 by jabber

my only major uncertainty is in my own intellect as i did not have any formal academic training at all...so i'm kinda busking and winging it at the moment...thats' why i love this site.

Loads of people with little or no academic training are smarter than I am. I learn something new almost every time I come to this site, and that is why I enjoy it so much.

57. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #307817 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 28, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Comment #307814 by Quetzalcoatl

Both.

58. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #307812 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 28, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Come to think of it, I always blame the Swedes.

59. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #307808 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 28, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Comment #307804 by jabber

England seems to make a hobby of actively searching out people to demonise; in the 80's, social troubles were placed on the shoulders of single mothers, now it's the fault of atheists - whatever next?

Astrophysicists?

60. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #307802 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 28, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Comment #307800 by jabber

Too true, prejudice against homosexuals is not restricted to the religious. In my country you only need to go to a football game to find empirical evidence for this sad fact.

61. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #307796 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 28, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Comment #307782 by jabber

Yes, my parents used that one once......shortly before they put me out of business, left me with £10,000 of trading debt, disowned me and banned me from ever contacting ANY memeber of the family EVER again!

That's awful. I apologise for being insensitive by calling the argument "funny". Shocking, cruel and stupid are better words.

62. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #307776 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 28, 2008 at 2:51 pm

This year a new law that gives equal rights to marriage and to apply to become adoptive parents was passed by the Norwegian parliament. In their vain attempt to oppose the law, the religious fundies actually realized that the "God hates gays" card would not get them very far and that they had to come up with more secular arguments. One of the funniest was that children of gay parents would suffer because there is so much prejudice against homosexuals.

63. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #307591 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 28, 2008 at 7:00 am

Comment #307586 by Brian English

Brian, your ontology blew Dianelos out of the water. And since my immortal soul has been in your possession since a few hundred posts ago I claim a small share in this glorious victory.

64. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #307531 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 28, 2008 at 5:45 am

Dianelos:

Only hand calculating machines huh? How many man-hours I wonder. But fair enough, so how does an electron of a single Helium atom manage without having access to hand calculating machines?

As Brian says, brute fact. An electron gotta do what an electron gotta do. And the principles are simple: the Schrodinger equation can be seen as a statement of invariance under time translations, the electromagnetic forces are the result of invariance under local U(1) gauge transformations, and since this is a two-electron system we have the additional requirement that the two-electron wave function must be antisymmetric under permutation of the two electrons. As Steve said,

The universe is full of simplicity and symmetry. The very last word to use about the behaviour of particles of matter in this universe is "complex". They could really hardly be simpler without not actually existing.

65. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #307493 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 28, 2008 at 4:36 am

Comment #307478 by Brian English

Oystein, brute fact!

I'll remember that the next time I accidently run my wife's favourite woolen jumper through washing machine's 60-degrees program.

66. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #307476 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 28, 2008 at 4:17 am

If you think that behavior is not complex, try computing the wavefunction that describes the behavior on an electron of one Helium atom (the second simplest atom that exists). You'll find you'll need a mind-boggling amount of computation to do that; one that is quite impossible without an actual computer.

Somewhat besides your point, but an excellent approximation to the wave function of two-electron atoms and ions was derived by Egil Hylleraas in 1929. And a simplified version of his calculation is a standard exercise in introductory courses on quantum mechanics. The calculation can be carried out with pencil and paper.

EDIT: Oops, I see that epeeist has made the same point.

67. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #307401 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 28, 2008 at 1:17 am

Comment #307393 by skb

If Darwin was wrong that God is non-existence, then he's faces turmoil, torment and gnashing of teeth (suggested by scripture), as contrasted with Newton and others who will not go through the same thing since they believed. so what's the similarities between Darwin and Newton, they were both smarts and genius, but the difference between both of them is what they believed about afterlife, which made awhole lot of difference depending on who was right or wrong

And you think this is something an all-loving god should do? Besides, if beliefs matter, then Newton is according to most Christian denominations roasting in hell now for not believing in the doctrine of the trinity.

68. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #307290 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 27, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Comment #307274 by Steve Zara

He is an attention-seeker. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but he is a tediously dull attention seeker with the memory of a goldfish and verbal diarrhea.

It is a waste of the considerable intellectual resources of this site that they spend time refuting Dianelos' nonsense, which is necessary as it is stuffed full of pseudo-science and half-baked philosophy.

Surely we have been through his arguments so many times that we can now respond by just pointing to older comments. And Dianelos could do the same thing, so that this thread could be reduced to a series of integers. For example:

DG: 3091
SZ: 2302
DG: 811
SZ: 815

In fact, we could make it even more efficient by letting DG enter a column vector of comments he wants us to respond to. We would then just operate on his column vector with our response matrix and generate an appropriate column vector of rebuttals.
Boring, but efficient.

69. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #306909 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 26, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Comment #306905 by Steve Zara

1) That once there was nothing. And then out of nothing came ‘something’.

2) That there has always been something – matter is eternal - a mass of gas or a piece of rock of ‘infinite density’ – which then exploded and then out of the subsequent chaos came Shakespeare, flowers and even Dr John.

3) That there has always been Someone. As the bible puts it an infinite personal God who created all the somethings.

The first of these options is philosophical nonsense. The second requires a great deal of faith. The third is the only really satisfying and reasonable proposition.

I am officially depressed now. How can we ever overcome such immense stupidity?

70. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #306900 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 26, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Comment #306889 by Steve Zara

That was a useful reminder. Sadly, that disgusting little man is not unique.

71. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #306822 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 26, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Comment #306720 by David A Robertson

I am not running away from it. You cannot use a non-existent evil to prove the non-existence of God. As for the existence of evil - why would that disprove the 'perfect good' of God?

Is the concept of internal consistency so difficult to grasp? As a Christian you probably believe that 1) God is all-powerful and 2) God is all good. You would probably also agree that suffering exists in great abundance. How do you reconcile this fact with 1) and 2)?

72. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #306685 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 26, 2008 at 2:40 am

Comment #306672 by skb

Anyway, I needed you to PLEASE, and scientifically explain how the universe came into being, and don't forget all the steps of the scientific method too(very important).

I guess you are familiar with the Big Bang model? It is based on our best models for matter, space and time on small and large scales, General Relativity and the Standard Model, and is supported by a wealth of observations: the existence and properties of the cosmic microwave background, the spatial distribution of galaxies, the relative abundance of light elements, and many others.

One of the implications of the Big Bang model is that 14 billion years ago the universe was exceedingly simple, because the broken symmetries that lie behind much of the complexity we observe around us today were then unbroken. Where did that state come from? To answer a question like that we need a consistent theory of quantum gravity. We don't have theory like that, but there are speculations that our universe could have been created by a tunneling event in the quantum vacuum.

At this point I guess you would like to say that science can never answer this question to your satisfaction, and therefore "goddidit". To which I would reply that this is not an answer to the question. You have no model for how you supposedly immaterial creator can act as a cause in the physical world. Besides, if space and time began with the Big Bang you have the problem of describing causation outside space and time. And you have to come up with a valid argument for God's necessary existence, since otherwise you would face the question of who created you God.

In all science we have to start our explanations with unexplained brute facts. We would like these brute facts to be as simple as possible, and a hypothetical supernatural being is therefore not a promising starting point for scientific explanation.

73. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #306015 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 24, 2008 at 3:52 am

The festivities start today here in Norway, so before I devote myself to family, food, drink and presents I would just like to say merry Christmas to all here. I enjoy the time I spend on this site tremendously. Among the posters on this site are the brightest and funniest people I have ever had the pleasure of bumping into. Thank you all, and have a great holiday!

74. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #305955 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 24, 2008 at 2:11 am

Comment #305941 by Vaal

A telescope is a wonderful Christmas present. And this Christmas it is especially appropriate since 2009 is the Year of Astronomy:

http://www.astronomy2009.org/

75. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #305942 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 24, 2008 at 1:42 am

Comment #305931 by Quine

I will be busy feeding myself for the next few days.

76. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #305929 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 24, 2008 at 1:01 am

Comment #305927 by Brian English

That makes a hell of a lot more sense.

77. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #305926 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 24, 2008 at 12:55 am

Comment #305868 by Dianelos Georgoudis

How do you come up with all this? And what on Earth does it mean that a person does not "exist in reality" but rather "exhausts all reality"? Your post is words, words, and more words.

78. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #305788 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 23, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Comment #305782 by Steve Zara

I have read "The Dawkins Letters", and I got the impression that he thinks that Jesus really was physically resurrected, that Christianity is the one true religion etc. That is why I am surprised to see him playing the "there is more than one truth" card in this situation.

79. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #305777 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 23, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Comment #305771 by Brian English

Thank you Oystein, your balanced view that that are many truths, and science is just one (and not necessarily the most important or truthy), shows how great an educator you are.

Countless students have thanked me after moving on to successful careers in the fast food industry. They may not know much about the scientific method, but they do know that there is more than one side to a burger. And that cheese matters.

80. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #305773 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 23, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Comment #305770 by Quetzalcoatl

Doesn't that depend on the meaning of "truth"?

Silly me, I forgot there are different kinds of truth. Is Robertson a fan of post-modern "thinking"?

81. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #305768 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 23, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Comment #305760 by Brian English

Oystein, what are your thoughts on my many-moons interpretation? Are you for freedom of speech or part of the atheist-cabal, scientific establishment that's stopping real-science from happening?

I think your many-moons interpretation represents a valid world view, and should be treated with respect. I will teach it in my cosmology course along with green cheese theory, the Earth-centered solar system, and the theory that the Earth was created from the dead body of the giant Yme. The students should be allowed to decide for themselves which world view they want to adopt.

82. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #305756 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 23, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Comment #305736 by David A Robertson

There is only ONE truth.

So you think all religions are equally true?

83. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #305751 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 23, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Comment #305735 by Brian English

Did Moeljnir (spelling?) get a make-over when Thor was going drag?

Well, he did it once to get Mjoelnir back from Trym, a jotne. Trym had stolen Thor's hammer and would only give it back if was allowed to marry Freya. Freya refused, but Loke came up with the brilliant idea of sending Thor to Jotunheimen dressed as a bride. It says a lot about the stupidity of Trym and his kind that the plan actually worked.

84. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #305733 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 23, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Comment #305727 by decius

Never heard, actually. Never been a big fan of mythology, except Greco-Roman myths. Sex and drugs, you know.

Then you would like Norse mythology. Heaven was a non-stop party, Odin was on par with Zeus when it came to women, and Thor was an occasional cross-dresser.

85. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #305091 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 22, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Comment #305089 by decius

Received and replied.

86. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #305088 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 22, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Comment #305064 by decius

No sign of it in my inbox yet. Will have to get some sleep soon.

87. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #305065 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 22, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Comment #305051 by Brian English

Oystein, I think you have been or will be rewarded handsomely for the selling of your immortal soul. Read the contract.

Can you make in-laws mysteriously disappear just before Xmas?

88. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #305046 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 22, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Comment #305039 by Brian English

Do you know the secret handshake?

No, but I just sold you my immortal soul. For a very low price. That should count for something.

89. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #305034 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 22, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Comment #305022 by Wosret
Comment #305025 by Brian English

Allow me to join in.

90. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #305010 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 22, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Comment #305005 by decius

I'll be here.

91. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #305007 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 22, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Comment #304999 by Titania

I'd sell mine for a pint of Guinness and a Cuban cigar.

Since we know that god is perfect in every way, he smokes Cuban cigars. I would guess Montecristo no. 4.

92. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #304991 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 22, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Comment #304986 by flying goose

Oystein I think I can confidently say that you do not have an immortal soul, and niether do I.

Have you sold yours to Brian, too?

93. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #304983 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 22, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Comment #304973 by Titania

Umm, Oystein, I think Brian is looking for submission and your immortal soul, not your admiration. ;)

I won't sell my immortal soul for anything less than a pint of Guiness and a pack of Camels.

94. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #304975 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 22, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Comment #304964 by Dianelos Georgoudis

In particular would such a person want to create other persons?

You tell me. If he is perfect, why bother?

95. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #304936 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 22, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Comment #304928 by Brian English

Agreed. And I bow in admiration of your new avatar.

96. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #304925 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 22, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Comment #304910 by Steve Zara

Great comment, Steve.

One thing I don't get with Dianelos' view is why his god would go to all the trouble of making us believe that there is a material world. If mind is fundamental and matter an illusion, then why make it look like we live in a universe that has been expanding for the last 14 billion years? I am sure it is possible to come up with some mumbo-jumbo about how god wants us to believe in him by our own free will, and therefore disbelief must be an option, but this is not very different from the crackpot creationist view that the fossils are there to test the faith of the believers.

97. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #304264 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 20, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Comment #304245 by Dianelos Georgoudis

1. It is the interpretation of quantum mechanics that probably most physicists believe in. It is certainly one of the most popular among physicists.

I haven't seen any polls, but among the practicing quantum mechanics I know, many-worlders are in a minority.

. It implies that there are universes out there where the Statue of Liberty swims every morning around Manhattan.

So what? It still means that if you pick a random universe from the ensemble, the probability of this happening is exceedingly low. And not a single one of these universes contains disembodied minds.

Do you know of any books on the ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics that do not agree with my view?

You could try John Polkinghorne's "The Quantum World" and Chris Isham's "Lectures on Quantum Theory" for starters. Both are theists, by the way. What you fail to mention in your long list of famous physicists is that most of them, Bohr and Heisenberg to mention but two, did not argue that quantum mechanics implies that mind must be something immaterial, only that classical concepts could not be used directly when talking about the quantum world.

I have not been arguing about "disembodied minds", whatever you mean by that. I am arguing that modern science demonstrates that consciousness must be a fundamental aspect of reality.

So your god is material, then?

No, I didn't know that. Can you explain what situations are these?

Well, for example, you can measure the charge-to-mass ratio of electrons by measuring how they are deflected by a magnetic field. The deflection angle can be calculated using classical electrodynamics. Another example, low-energy scattering of electromagnetic waves by electrons can, at least to lowest order, be described by treating both the electromagnetic field and the electron with classical electrodynamics.

What a strange question to ask. Both God and you are persons. So how do you go about it when you choose not to think about something? Well, the same way does God go about it.

But I have a brain. We have no evidence for consciousness existing outside of brains. And god has a much bigger task set for him since he has to all the time choose exactly which quantum states to collapse or not.

98. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #304227 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 20, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Comment #304216 by the great teapot

Thanks, but I don't need an apology from him. What he should do, however, is to retract his slanderous accusation of quote mining in TGD, since he has not come up with any evidence for it.

99. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #304178 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 20, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Comment #304104 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Oystein "electrons move along straight lines in their local free-fall frames" Elgaroy

You can repeat this as many times as you like, but it is not funny, because the statement is true given the situation I presumed we were talking about.

Like so many others here, I am fed up with you now. You never provide evidence for your world view, like for instance explaining to us how consciousness can exist without brains. And your repeated talk about how god is perfect and suffering is no problem, because it is all perfect anyway is downright offensive. I lost my father to cancer about ten years ago. One of the things he was looking forward to was seeing me graduate and obtain my Ph.D. Had he lived just a few months longer, he would have done so. If your god exists, he certainly has not got perfect timing.

Continuing on a personal level, I have had people like you around me all my life. Theists with their nose in the air, laughing at the unsophisticated infidels. What I am most ashamed of is that it took me so long to realize that they were full of crap. Like you, they had no positive evidence for people being resurrected from the dead, for the "word becoming flesh", and nothing to offer in response to the problem of evil other than saying that there is a "hidding meaning" and that it is all part of the "mystery of existence". Mystery my ass. Fuck off.

100. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #304034 by Oystein Elgaroy on December 20, 2008 at 5:41 am

Comment #303983 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Perhaps you'd like to ridicule them all too.

What is ridiculous is the fact that you think you are able to judge the merits of different interpretations of quantum mechanics based on your own superficial knowledge of the theory and reading books that mostly agree with your own view.

I believe lots of work remains to be done before we have a satisfactory interpretation of quantum mechanics, and I also think we need to have a proper theory of quantum gravity first. I don't see many physicists arguing for the existence of disembodied minds based on quantum mechanics, and I have not seen any convincing arguments for it in your posts here either.

Or perhaps Oystein "electrons move along straight lines" Elgaroy should. (The interested reader may want to look at comments #302940, 303179, 303199 and 303617 – or #3199, 3378, 3561, and 3597 in this thread.)

Incidentally, do you have any relation to the physicist Oystein Elgaroy? For frankly you don't sound like a physicist to me. The physicists I know don't speak nonsense physics, nor do they consistently shy away from checking other peoples' claims about physics, nor do they ridicule other physicists' ideas without any arguments.

As I have said earlier, I understood your original post to be about classical motion. In case you did not know, there are situations where the motion of electrons can be studied using the classical equations of motion.

And I did not say that electrons move in straight line in a gravitational field from any vantage point, I referred explicitly to the free-fall frame. If you don't know what a free-fall frame is, I have given you a reference to an introductory book on general relativity in an earlier post.

Yes, I noticed how you threw the ball back to them, after previously having announced that you would comment to my post (see #297143, or 2017 in this thread). And I see you still don't rise to the challenge. That behavior is not consistent with the nature of a physicist, but is consistent with the nature of an impostor, it seems to me. And if you are not an impostor, then of course it's much worse still.

What points in your post was not covered by them? If I agree with what they say, then why should I write a long post that just repeats their arguments?

As I have explained in the past the only reasonable way to understand God's perfection in relation to knowledge and to power is that God knows what Gods wants to know and that God can do (and does) what God wants to do. It is absurd to believe that a perfect person would have to know what S/He does not want to know, or would have to do what S/He does not want to do, correct? So if God does not want to know or does not want to collapse wavefunctions then certainly God can refrain from doing so, don’t you think?

This illustrates what tricks you can play when you work with vague ideas like disembodied minds. So, how does god go about it when he chooses to exercise his right to ignorance? Your answer is equivalent to "goddidit", only less economical with words.