An atheists world (2)

[toolmanjantzi]

No, when I turn on a flashlight and wave it around I am not waving God around.

Do you even have a grade school level of science education?

Seriously. The questions you ask show that you have no clue about any science at all.

Maybe this would help:

Introductory Science Skills: Dorothy L. Gabel: 9780881336979: Amazon.com: Books

Any educated person would understand the question. Unfortunately no amount of education has taught you the ability to read a grade school question.

Lets try that again.

If darkness is the absence of light. Then what would hell be like for an atheist that CHOOSES a world absent of God who is light. If sight is based on light and the Atheist is said to be blind to the truth and God is the truth, then is it not true the atheist sits in darkness and does not comprehend the light.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:5 KJV)

But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! (Matthew 6:23 KJV)

I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. (John 12:46 KJV)

By observation if God is light, then the same attributes of light should match some of the attributes of God and his Word.

 

[mzungu]

Any educated person would understand the question. Unfortunately no amount of education has taught you the ability to read a grade school question.

Lets try that again.

If darkness is the absence of light. Then what would hell be like for an atheist that CHOOSES a world absent of God who is light. If sight is based on light and the Atheist is said to be blind to the truth and God is the truth, then is it not true the atheist sits in darkness and does not comprehend the light.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:5 KJV)

But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! (Matthew 6:23 KJV)

I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. (John 12:46 KJV)

By observation if God is light, then the same attributes of light should match some of the attributes of God and his Word.

There is such a thing as wallowing in the mud of ignorance!

 

[lasthero]

Hell isn't the absence of God.

 

[createdtoworship]

The weirdness of light seeming to behave as both a wave and a particle isn't a failure of coherence, it's a failure of both "wave" and "particle" as analogies for how packets of light radiation behave.

Ripples in water and bouncing balls might be easy to visualise for people, but that doesn't make them perfect as models for the atomic and subatomic universe.

the reason the analogies fail is because we don't understand the photon.

 

[createdtoworship]

Light is a from of energy. Light is "pure" energy.

That energy comes in measured packets called photons.

On a gross scale the probability calculations simplify to make it look like light is a wave of continuous power.

How things look on a macro scale may have nothing with what something looks like on a micro scale.

and how a laser can cut through steel? When it's just a bandwidth wave? Makes no sense.

 

[Loudmouth]

the reason the analogies fail is because we don't understand the photon.

I wouldn't project your ignorance onto others. We understand the photon just fine.

 

[lasthero]

Science/Atheists go to great lengths to disprove the truth of the bible

Science is not out to disprove the Bible.

 

[createdtoworship]

I wouldn't project your ignorance onto others. We understand the photon just fine.

lol. which is it the particle, the wave, or energy?

go ahead, and use your own words please.

 

[Loudmouth]

lol. which is it the particle, the wave, or energy?

False dichotomy. It is a particle whose position is is described by a wave function, and it carries energy. This is all demonstrated by some very simple experiments, such as Young's Double Slit experiment:


Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you observe a photon as a particle it collapses the wave function. This is all basic quantum mechanics. I would suggest that you read a book on quantum mechanics. There are several that are written for the lay public, such as these popular ones:

The Dancing Wu Li Masters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspace_(book)

I have read both and found them to be good reads.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Science is not out to disprove the Bible.

In that case please do not use science to disprove the Truth in it.

Thanks,

 

[lasthero]

In that case please do not use science to disprove the Truth in it.

Thanks,

That science does not support many of the Bible's claims does not mean that science is out to disprove the Bible, anymore than science is out to disprove the Loch Ness Monster.

 

[bhsmte]

In that case please do not use science to disprove the Truth in it.

Thanks,

Science follows the evidence. If that evidence happens to go against what the bible states, then thats where it goes.

 

[bhsmte]

In that case please do not use science to disprove the Truth in it.

Thanks,

Also, if the bible has truths, than science should be no threat.

 

[Belk]

In that case please do not use science to disprove the Truth in it.

Thanks,

If you stop pitting the bible against science and claiming well evidenced things must be wrong because of how you understand your book there would be no issue. The ball is in your court, not ours.

 

[createdtoworship]

False dichotomy. It is a particle whose position is is described by a wave function, and it carries energy. This is all demonstrated by some very simple experiments, such as Young's Double Slit experiment:


Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you observe a photon as a particle it collapses the wave function. This is all basic quantum mechanics. I would suggest that you read a book on quantum mechanics. There are several that are written for the lay public, such as these popular ones:

The Dancing Wu Li Masters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspace_(book)

I have read both and found them to be good reads.

I have seen the double slit experiment many times, it doesn't explain, it simply makes us question more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have seen the double slit experiment many times, it doesn't explain, it simply makes us question more.

Experiments never explain. That is not their purpose. Theories explain. Experiments are a way of testing theories and seeing whether they are wrong or not. An experiment does not "prove" a theory, it can support one. It can also show a theory to be wrong.

The double slit experiment when applied to electrons strongly supports quantum theory.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

False dichotomy. It is a particle whose position is is described by a wave function, and it carries energy. This is all demonstrated by some very simple experiments, such as Young's Double Slit experiment:

Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you observe a photon as a particle it collapses the wave function. This is all basic quantum mechanics. I would suggest that you read a book on quantum mechanics. There are several that are written for the lay public, such as these popular ones:

The Dancing Wu Li Masters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperspace_(book)

I have read both and found them to be good reads.

Why doesn't that work on atheists? You should read this book about Christianity, all the answers are always in a book. Unfortunately faith is not in a book.

 

[createdtoworship]

Experiments never explain. That is not their purpose. Theories explain. Experiments are a way of testing theories and seeing whether they are wrong or not. An experiment does not "prove" a theory, it can support one. It can also show a theory to be wrong.

The double slit experiment when applied to electrons strongly supports quantum theory.

actually theories without experiments are null and void, so I am not sure where you are going with all of this.

btw you have any experiments of eye balls evolving

or bacterial flagellum (with something like 300 moving parts?)

I posted a quote from newton (not sure which thread) but it mentions how it is unlogical to thing complex things can evolve at all. I mean how can a can opener evolve teeth and a gear when the experiment will fail after the gear evolve over (1000's of years) and no teeth. The result is not a can opener. It's a spinning gear thing with no usefullness, only to be naturally selected out of the equation.

 

[biggles53]

actually theories without experiments are null and void, so I am not sure where you are going with all of this.

btw you have any experiments of eye balls evolving

or bacterial flagellum (with something like 300 moving parts?)

I posted a quote from newton (not sure which thread) but it mentions how it is unlogical to thing complex things can evolve at all. I mean how can a can opener evolve teeth and a gear when the experiment will fail after the gear evolve over (1000's of years) and no teeth. The result is not a can opener. It's a spinning gear thing with no usefullness, only to be naturally selected out of the equation.

Subduction correctly said that experiments are A way of supporting theories....but they are not the ONLY way. In the case of eyes, the best support for the theory that we have are the genetic information supplied from extant living creatures. We are able to observe a smooth gradation in the development of eyes, from simple light-sensitive cells on the surface of an animal, through to the most sophisticated forms of sight (which are not human, by the way...)

Oh...and whilst Newton was a genius in his own right and provided us with some seminal breakthroughs in mathematics and physics, our understanding of biology has advanced somewhat since his time...!

 

[Loudmouth]

I have seen the double slit experiment many times, it doesn't explain, it simply makes us question more.

It most certainly explains. It demonstrates that the wave function of photons interfere and produce the expected valleys and peaks.

How is that not an explanation?