Quantum Mechanics and the Incompetence of Atheism.

[thaumaturgy]

Lol, Shrodinger's Cat isn't really a thought experiment--it's more like a slightly schitzophrenic metaphor that the physicist uses that to me should be an inspiration for idiots everywhere trying to persue a PhD.

How can one person have such atrocious spelling and call others "idiots" in the same paragraph?

I mean who would think of using deadly toxins and dead cats in a thought experiment?

Well, when you paint it that way. Of course it is unlikely anyone would really have been provoked to thought if Schroedinger had merely limited the thought experiment to "spin" or some other more prosaic aspect. The fact that a living thing is used is to drive home the point on a macro scale. So "idiots" will be provoked to thinking about the larger issues. If you would like there's a nice summary on Wikipedia of the "origins" of the thought experiment (LINKY).

Here's what Schroedinger himself said:

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.
It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks. (SOURCE)

The concept is a bit more detailed than merely torturing cats.

If guys like Erwin Shrodinger (or even Jack Kemp) can get a PhD, then anyone can.

I couldn't care less about Jack Kemp, but Schroedinger (that's how the name is spelled without resort to umlauts, in case you care to talk to us "idiots"), well, if you think him undeserving of a PhD, then I'll have to call you a troll.

Schrödinger had worked at Vienna on radioactivity, proving the statistical nature of radioactive decay. He had also made important contributions to the kinetic theory of solids, studying the dynamics of crystal lattices.(SOURCE)

And then something that surprised me about this doofus who proved anyone can get a PhD:

One of Schrödinger's lesser-known areas of scientific contribution was his work on color, color perception, and colorimetry (Farbenmetrik). In 1920, he published three papers in this area (SOURCE)

Colorimetry is certainly different from the other topics.

They are an inspiration to demented people and simpletons everywhere.

You are an inspiration to trolls everywhere! Anyone who can spell as poorly as you do and call others "idiots", "demented" and "simpletons" deserves the Nobel Prize in Trollery.

 

[Bombila]

This is the kind of treatment I was recieving at the richarddawkins forum right before I was banned from there. Here the person I'm replying to contradicts himself. He will not explain his contradiction later.

Here Cabal says in the first sentence that quantities can't be known, then in the second sentence he says "quantities are still knowable." Cabal, care to explain your contradiction?

Like to think of people as known quantities, do you? Well, to some extent, they can be, but it is usually thought rude to point it out right away - poisons the conversation. And in this instance, presuppposes Cabal's (whose faith icon you may not have noticed) responses.

Have you tired, then, of Elmer Fudding after the atheist moderators you see behind every forum corner?

 

[Cabal]

I'll agree with most of this. But try to get an Atheist to agree to it! They, for some reason or another, don't believe in the 'bizarreness' of quantum mechanics; but, rather, some kind of determinable, interpretable explination of quantum mechanics.

Which is? And bizarreness doesn't imply that there's a problem with QM either, or that it's not well understood. Just that it go counter to our macroscopic, everyday experience.

Dude. Thought-experiments involving dead animals is demented! Report me until your computer's 'enter' button breaks off; I don't care. Insolong as there are no violations of the rules, your complaint will fall on deaf ears.

Even if you think it's demented, it doesn't detract from the magnitude of Schrodinger's work, or the point he was trying to make.

And you insulted anyone with a PhD. Flame royale, methinks.

Let's test this hypothesis, shall we? *reports*

What's of interest is that I have had three Atheists already violate the rules in this thread by being rude to me. Yet there was no objection on your part. Why?

1. You're the OP. So far I have reason to address you and you only - it's not my job to police the thread. This is why mods exist.

2. Given your arrogant arrival on this forum (which are ten-a-penny around here btw, and you're far from the best of them, although I will say a militant theistic evolutionist is an interesting one) I can't blame people for telling you where to get off. Tell me, what are your scientific qualifications?

If you come onto this board, insulting my line of work, all the while acting like you know so much while being called on your lack of knowledge, don't expect me to instantly jump to your aid just because we have the same faith icon category.

 

[atomweaver]

If guys like Erwin Shrodinger (or even Jack Kemp) can get a PhD, then anyone can. They are an inspiration to demented people and simpletons everywhere.

What PhD does Jack Kemp have? AFAIK, he has an undergraduate degree in Physical Education, plus a few grad classes in economics...

 

[Cabal]

This is the kind of treatment I was recieving at the richarddawkins forum right before I was banned from there. Here the person I'm replying to contradicts himself. He will not explain his contradiction later.

Here Cabal says in the first sentence that quantities can't be known, then in the second sentence he says "quantities are still knowable." Cabal, care to explain your contradiction?

Bad phrasing perhaps. But as I said before, position and momentum aren't simultaneously knowable to infinite accuracy, due to the limits of Heisenberg's uncertainty relation. However, the relation...

...is for the combined product. There is no limit on what the individual uncertainties can be. Delta-x can be rendered miniscule if you want, but you can't have delta-p be as small simultaneously, it will instead increase. This can also be made to work vice versa (I'd also like to remind you at this point that all measurements made in physics have some degree of uncertainty, but that doesn't debunk atheism either)

The uncertainty relation, while making a limit on the degree of knowledge one can obtain simultaneously on these two variables through measurement, doesn't change the fact that the quantities x and p have fully knowable sets of eigenfunctions and eigenvalues.

Additionally, a wavefunction, despite being probabilistic in nature, is a complete description of a quantum mechanical system. It's normalised over all space to 1, and has the well defined aforementioned eigenvalues and calculable expectation values. If you take a simple example, say an infinite square potential well (the most basic example in QM) you can calculate a formula for the energy eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian that are always found to be true, the only real differences introduceable would be due to the width and location of the potential well.

__________________________________________________

The commutation relation I mentioned earlier is given by:

[a,b] x wavefunction = (ab x wavefunction) -(ba x wavefunction)

Where a,b are quantum operators for two quantities, and [a,b] is the commutator for those two operators. If the commutator is zero, the quantities commute and are simultaneously knowable. If it is non zero, there is an uncertainty relationship between them. Example, [x,y] = 0, [x,p(in x direction)] = ih/2(pi)

However, many quantum mechanical systems can be sufficiently described using three mutually commuting operators. A good example would be H, the hamiltonian, which describes the energy; L^2, the total angular momentum; and Lz, one of the individual components of angular momentum.

Again, sorry I can't give more detail than this, I don't have access to a textbook, will try and dig one out tomorrow at work.

Note to any passing physicists: If what I've just said is incorrect, let me know.

 

[Holy Roller]

How can one person have such atrocious spelling and call others "idiots" in the same paragraph?



Well, when you paint it that way. Of course it is unlikely anyone would really have been provoked to thought if Schroedinger had merely limited the thought experiment to "spin" or some other more prosaic aspect. The fact that a living thing is used is to drive home the point on a macro scale. So "idiots" will be provoked to thinking about the larger issues. If you would like there's a nice summary on Wikipedia of the "origins" of the thought experiment

Here's what Schroedinger himself said:



The concept is a bit more detailed than merely torturing cats.



I couldn't care less about Jack Kemp, but Schroedinger (that's how the name is spelled without resort to umlauts, in case you care to talk to us "idiots"), well, if you think him undeserving of a PhD, then I'll have to call you a troll.



And then something that surprised me about this doofus who proved anyone can get a PhD:



Colorimetry is certainly different from the other topics.



You are an inspiration to trolls everywhere! Anyone who can spell as poorly as you do and call others "idiots", "demented" and "simpletons" deserves the Nobel Prize in Trollery.

Much effort has gone into the posting of this reply, yet none of it is relevant to the subject-matter at hand.
Please avoid the temptation of contributing further to this thread unless you have something relevant to say. Thank you.

 

[Holy Roller]

Like to think of people as known quantities, do you? Well, to some extent, they can be, but it is usually thought rude to point it out right away - poisons the conversation. And in this instance, presuppposes Cabal's (whose faith icon you may not have noticed) responses.

Have you tired, then, of Elmer Fudding after the atheist moderators you see behind every forum corner?

When you visit this forum, please avoid the temptation of entering anything in the Log-In and Password fields. Thank you.

 

[Holy Roller]

And you insulted anyone with a PhD. Flame royale, methinks.
Let's test this hypothesis, shall we? *reports*
1. You're the OP. So far I have reason to address you and you only - it's not my job to police the thread. This is why mods exist.

More contradictions from Cabal.
First you use the 'Report' feature on this thread (please see what I highlighted in red, above), then you say you aren't policing the thread (please see what I highlighted in lavender, above). Why the contradiction? This is the second time we got a contradiction from you.

2. Given your arrogant arrival on this forum (which are ten-a-penny around here btw, and you're far from the best of them, although I will say a militant theistic evolutionist is an interesting one) I can't blame people for telling you where to get off.

I am the farthest thing from arrogant. The definition of arrogance is 'pride in the absence of ability'. Thus, a Russian may feel and express pride towards his country, yet Russia has no real redeeming values (social; military; economic) to speak of. The Russian citizen is arrogant in this instance, not pride.

Tell me, what are your scientific qualifications?

My profile is available for all to see. What isn't shown is my background in physics. Enough of an understanding to make me appreciate this splendorous Universe G-d made, and enough to have this discussion with any Atheist who has had a post-graduate level education in subject-matters related to classical, relativistic or quantum physics.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Much effort has gone into the posting of this reply, yet none of it is relevant to the subject-matter at hand.
Please avoid the temptation of contributing further to this thread unless you have something relevant to say. Thank you.

No, thank you. Thank you for showing us exactly how deeply you thought through your own comments before "contributing" them.

Relevant? Sorry, but you threw relevance out the door when you said this:

Lol, Shrodinger's Cat isn't really a thought experiment--it's more like a slightly schitzophrenic metaphor that the physicist uses that to me should be an inspiration for idiots everywhere trying to persue a PhD.
...

If guys like Erwin Shrodinger (or even Jack Kemp) can get a PhD, then anyone can. They are an inspiration to demented people and simpletons everywhere.

(I've highlighted the bits where you gutted your own "contribution's" value. In case you are too smart to pick it up.)

Oh, and just for the record, very little work went into my posting...I actually am just that facile with finding information, and given the fact that I have a science degree means I might know where to look for stuff related to science!

So you see, because it looks like it would have taken an intellect such as yourself a goodly amount of time to craft that post, doesn't mean its true for everyone.

SOME of us actually got a PhD for a reason.

 

[Danyc]

Guys, he's a troll. And not even a good one, come on, it's pretty obvious.

Just look at the way he posts.

 

[Cabal]

More contradictions from Cabal.
First you use the 'Report' feature on this thread (please see what I highlighted in red, above), then you say you aren't policing the thread (please see what I highlighted in lavender, above). Why the contradiction? This is the second time we got a contradiction from you.

The previous "contradiction" has been addressed. However I see you've made no attempt to actually talk physics here.

Reread what I posted. I'm not here to police all bad behaviour in this thread, I'm not a mod. But I will report you, the OP, for making offensive remarks that pertain to me. Which is what you did, and were unapologetic upon confrontation. As for everyone else here, you sort it out, you big bad "atheist hunter" you.

I am the farthest thing from arrogant. The definition of arrogance is 'pride in the absence of ability'. Thus, a Russian may feel and express pride towards his country, yet Russia has no real redeeming values (social; military; economic) to speak of. The Russian citizen is arrogant in this instance, not pride.

Ah, I see you're racist as well; and given that you've yet to show any ability....

My profile is available for all to see. What isn't shown is my background in physics. Enough of an understanding to make me appreciate this splendorous Universe G-d made, and enough to have this discussion with any Atheist who has had a post-graduate level education in subject-matters related to classical, relativistic or quantum physics.

Does that mean you actually have a postgrad, or do you just think you know it all? And what does atheism have to do with regard to education, exactly?

physics -> http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48456926&postcount=26

Now, actually talk science for a change. Actually take this somewhere worth discussing, or take it somewhere else.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Nevermind Cabal said it better.

But after reading his profile I don't think that Holly roller is a troll.

 

[Washington]

Got a kick out of Holy Roller's impression that any thread he starts is somehow HIS thread.

Post #
18. "Please avoid the temptation of contributing further to this thread. Thank you in advance."

27. "Please avoid the temptation of contributing further to this thread unless you have something relevant to say."

28. "When you visit this forum, please avoid the temptation of entering anything in the Log-In and Password fields."
​

Sort of a, "This is MY party and I that gives me a special right to ask you to stay away."

Now THAT'S arrogance. Petty arrogance.



PS. Notice the repeated use of "avoid the temptation"? Obviously, asking people to stay away from him is a common occurrence with HR.

 

[Holy Roller]

Bad phrasing perhaps. But as I said before, position and momentum aren't simultaneously knowable to infinite accuracy, due to the limits of Heisenberg's uncertainty relation. However, the relation...

...is for the combined product. There is no limit on what the individual uncertainties can be. Delta-x can be rendered miniscule if you want, but you can't have delta-p be as small simultaneously, it will instead increase. This can also be made to work vice versa

Dude since this is an equation that that represents momentum and position as a product, of course the change of x will go up if you make momentum go down.
Now what I'd like to know is why you first correctly say that P and X can't be determined simultaneously, then show a relation (combined product equation) that has nothing to do with determining two quantities simultaneously.
Reads like a cut 'n paste, if you ask me. I'm not accusing you of anything; your line of thinking is inconsistent, that's all.

(I'd also like to remind you at this point that all measurements made in physics have some degree of uncertainty, but that doesn't debunk atheism either)

First off, there is no degree of uncertainty if we measure the mass of an object, and the mass of an object is a physical measurement.
Secondly, you admitted yourself that P and X can't be found out simultaneously, then say this doesn't debunk Atheism. Since Atheism is the religion that states faith in the provable, and since X and P can't be proven to a particular value, then Atheism fails in the quantum realm; thus, debunked.
Not that that matters. Atheism states there's the faith that G-d does not exist. Since G-d can't be proven to exist, it's tacit and axiomatic that there's no way to prove He can't exist. But we have it better, since our evidence of His existence is the known Universe. The Atheist has no evidence; only pious dogma.

The uncertainty relation, while making a limit on the degree of knowledge one can obtain simultaneously on these two variables through measurement, doesn't change the fact that the quantities x and p have fully knowable sets of eigenfunctions and eigenvalues.

This is the "fully knowable" set of the energy eigenvalue for an oscillator that I pulled off the Net (not shown). What must be brought to your attn is the h with the little bar across the top, called Planks Costant. And since Plank's Constant is a known quantity (energy/frequency of photon), then your eigenfunction turns into a known value.
Since any system you apply your eigenfunction to will be known, so will your set.
As with the inconsistency associated with your previous discourse, there is the inconsistency here. Can you explain the connection between your measuement and your set?

Additionally, a wavefunction, despite being probabilistic in nature, is a complete description of a quantum mechanical system. It's normalised over all space to 1,

You mean the normalized equation = 1. Wavefunctions are not probablistic if you consider mathematical treatment of the free particle.

and has the well defined aforementioned eigenvalues and calculable expectation values.

Sounds just fine, if not purely academic.

If you take a simple example, say an infinite square potential well (the most basic example in QM) you can calculate a formula for the energy eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian that are always found to be true, the only real differences introduceable would be due to the width and location of the potential well.

A simple example of what? A wavefunction? Wouldn't the most simple example be the free particle that's ascribed to it a sine wave? Why don't we do just that, since free particles exist like everywhere.
Also, since the eigenvenergy has m and L as the only variables, then why should we be led to expect aanything false with our calculation? Also, why width? Why location? Neither play a role in Shrodinger's Equation.

__________________________________________________

The commutation relation I mentioned earlier is given by:

[a,b] x wavefunction = (ab x wavefunction) -(ba x wavefunction)

Where a,b are quantum operators for two quantities, and [a,b] is the commutator for those two operators. If the commutator is zero, the quantities commute and are simultaneously knowable. If it is non zero, there is an uncertainty relationship between them. Example, [x,y] = 0, [x,p(in x direction)] = ih/2(pi)

Compliments of Wikipedia.

However, many quantum mechanical systems can be sufficiently described using three mutually commuting operators. A good example would be H, the hamiltonian, which describes the energy; L^2, the total angular momentum; and Lz, one of the individual components of angular momentum.

Again, sorry I can't give more detail than this, I don't have access to a textbook, will try and dig one out tomorrow at work.

Note to any passing physicists: If what I've just said is incorrect, let me know.

Technically, it's all correct, but seems to be pedantic. In other words, thispost seems to serve the purpose of educating without stating a reason for existence.

Cabal, have you learned that the religion of Atheism and its related dogma cannot coexist with the uncertainties of physical reality on the quantum scale yet?

.

 

[Cabal]

Dude since this is an equation that that represents momentum and position as a product, of course the change of x will go up if you make momentum go down.
Now what I'd like to know is why you first correctly say that P and X can't be determined simultaneously, then show a relation (combined product equation) that has nothing to do with determining two quantities simultaneously.

Well, it's the Heisenberg uncertainty relation you were talking about, and that's one way of writing it - what do you suggest I use?

First off, there is no degree of uncertainty if we measure the mass of an object, and the mass of an object is a physical measurement.

Yup, there is, depends how accurate your mass-measuring implement is.

Secondly, you admitted yourself that P and X can't be found out simultaneously, then say this doesn't debunk Atheism. Since Atheism is the religion that states faith in the provable, and since X and P can't be proven to a particular value, then Atheism fails in the quantum realm; thus, debunked.

No, that's not what atheism is. And even with your strawman definition, inherent uncertainty doesn't debunk it.

Also, "proven"? Measured simultaneously, I think you'll find.

This is the "fully knowable" set of the energy eigenvalue for an oscillator that I pulled off the Net. What must be brought to your attn is the h with the little bar across the top, called Planks Costant. And since Plank's Constant is a known quantity (energy/frequency of photon), then your eigenfunction turns into a known value.
Since any system you apply your eigenfunction to will be known, so will your set.

Yup. And yet energy has an uncertainty relation with time. Doesn't stop you knowing the energy eigenvalues though if you go time-independent.

The point I was trying to make was that forbidden simultaneous knowledge doesn't rule out non-simultaneous knowledge. It merely changes the form of what you're looking it. Take a infinitely long wave - position uncertainty infinite, wavelength via p fixed. Vice versa, a wave-packet. It doesn't rule out us knowing how either of these two forms behave.

A simple example of what? A wavefunction? Wouldn't the most simple example be the free particle that's ascribed to it a sine wave? Why don't we do just that, since free particles exist like everywhere.

Sorry, potential. Think I'll leave that tack for now.

Cabal, have you learned that the religion of Atheism and its related dogma cannot coexist with the uncertainties of physical reality on the quantum scale yet?

Nope, because:

1. You're redefining atheism into your own personal definition. Faith doesn't come into any aspect of science. There are results. You either accept them, or don't.

2. The reason faith doesn't apply to qm is: despite the inherent uncertainty on fourier-transform paired variables, QM is probably the best supported physical theory out there. And when it comes to the uncertainty, not only do we know it exists, we can quantify it, it explains a ton of stuff (like why electrons and the nuclei don't attract and collide) and we can do experiments into the nature of it. And we can still measure the set of eigenvalues for the individual quantities, and everything else in quantum mechanics that is based around this fundamental uncertainty still comes out as expected every time almost 90 years later.

I don't really see how uncertainty means QM is "faith-based" when we can do all that consistently and as often as you want. Now, could you build a lab around God and see if he produces the same result to the same measurement/stimulus/interaction/whatever, every single time, even though his mechanisms are taken on faith? I think not.

3. Your argument only has issues with uncertainty. At best, it's God of the gaps. At worst, it's a false dichotomy. Neither of which are concrete proof of anything whatsoever, and rightly so. It also falls prey to the "if you can't see it, then it must be faith" fallacy. Most modern physical concepts are based around the effects of things, not the things themselves. You can't see cathode rays, but you can see the scintillation photons they cause. Does that mean cathode rays don't exist? Of course it doesn't mean that.

And it also relegates God to the realm of Chuck Norris facts.

Jesus CAN determine position and momentum simultaneously!

Jesus CAN divide by zero!

Sorry dude, but I think this one can be called heavily into question even without physics.

 

[Holy Roller]

Gentlemen. I can't post links, but I am making the attempt to prevent your little strategy from progressing any further. So, if you please go to the Questions About CF forum, you will note that your sham has been uncovered. You Atheists may have gotten away with eliminating the religious intelligentsia at richarddawkins forum, but it will not succeed here. Please note that a reply on that thread of mine will only represent a continuation of your doomed strategy.

 

[Holy Roller]

Well, it's the Heisenberg uncertainty relation you were talking about, and that's one way of writing it - what do you suggest I use?
Yup, there is, depends how accurate your mass-measuring implement is.
No, that's not what atheism is. And even with your strawman definition, inherent uncertainty doesn't debunk it.
Also, "proven"? Measured simultaneously, I think you'll find.
Yup. And yet energy has an uncertainty relation with time. Doesn't stop you knowing the energy eigenvalues though if you go time-independent.
The point I was trying to make was that forbidden simultaneous knowledge doesn't rule out non-simultaneous knowledge. It merely changes the form of what you're looking it. Take a infinitely long wave - position uncertainty infinite, wavelength via p fixed. Vice versa, a wave-packet. It doesn't rule out us knowing how either of these two forms behave.
Sorry, potential. Think I'll leave that tack for now.
Nope, because:
1. You're redefining atheism into your own personal definition. Faith doesn't come into any aspect of science. There are results. You either accept them, or don't.
2. The reason faith doesn't apply to qm is: despite the inherent uncertainty on fourier-transform paired variables, QM is probably the best supported physical theory out there. And when it comes to the uncertainty, not only do we know it exists, we can quantify it, it explains a ton of stuff (like why electrons and the nuclei don't attract and collide) and we can do experiments into the nature of it. And we can still measure the set of eigenvalues for the individual quantities, and everything else in quantum mechanics that is based around this fundamental uncertainty still comes out as expected every time almost 90 years later.

I don't really see how uncertainty means QM is "faith-based" when we can do all that consistently and as often as you want. Now, could you build a lab around God and see if he produces the same result to the same measurement/stimulus/interaction/whatever, every single time, even though his mechanisms are taken on faith? I think not.

3. Your argument only has issues with uncertainty. At best, it's God of the gaps. At worst, it's a false dichotomy. Neither of which are concrete proof of anything whatsoever, and rightly so. It also falls prey to the "if you can't see it, then it must be faith" fallacy. Most modern physical concepts are based around the effects of things, not the things themselves. You can't see cathode rays, but you can see the scintillation photons they cause. Does that mean cathode rays don't exist? Of course it doesn't mean that.

And it also relegates God to the realm of Chuck Norris facts.

Jesus CAN determine position and momentum simultaneously!

Jesus CAN divide by zero!

Sorry dude, but I think this one can be called heavily into question even without physics.

OK, now we're starting to get somewhere. Note that although I question your Christianity (I'm allowed to do that, you know), it must be noted that a professed Christian is the only person who has been able to put up a substantial and acceptably pithy discussion on matters related to Atheism; the Atheists remain silent.

My argument has issues with uncertainty, true, but should that diminish its poignancy? I think not, since uncertainty is just another quality of physical reality. You say it's the "G-d of the gaps". And what is the problem with the G-d of the gaps? I don't see one, especially when physical law guarantees that there's no such thing as the "science of the gaps." I can't see this as a false dichotomy, either, because

1. Atheism exists because there's the faith that G-d can't be proven to exist (the fundamental postulate of Atheism). And,
2. We have established that faith in cause-and-effect can't be proven to exist (uncertainty principle). Resulting in:
3. The Atheist necessarily abandoning belief in quantum mechanics as a bona-fide branch of science.

There we have it. The reason why Atheists have to give up their readings in quantum mechanics. And if they can't do that, then they have to consider their faith in quantum phenomena as real as their faith in G-d.
In this light, the reality of G-d is as real as the reality of uncertainty.
We can't ever see the momentum and position at the same time. Likewise, we can't see the face of G-d interact directly with systems of physical reality at the same time. But! We can see the effects of both. For the former it's, perhaps, spontaneous emission from florescence. And for the latter, the work the almighty G-d does in the hearts of man.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Gentlemen. I can't post links, but I am making the attempt to prevent your little strategy from progressing any further. So, if you please go to the Questions About CF forum, you will note that your sham has been uncovered. You Atheists may have gotten away with eliminating the religious intelligentsia at richarddawkins forum, but it will not succeed here. Please note that a reply on that thread of mine will only represent a continuation of your doomed strategy.

Don't you just love n00bs with grand pronouncements!

They're so cute.

 

[Deamiter]

And what is the problem with the G-d of the gaps?

Mainly that it is usually manifested by Christians claiming unequivocally that X must be true or God/The Bible/The Holy Spirit In My Head doesn't exist. Later, X is shown to be false so God is disproven...?

God of the gaps DEFINES God as being in the gaps -- the problem is that as gaps in our knowledge are closed, those who thus define God either have to deny reality or redefine their concept of God and God's actions.

In your case (from the OP) you have claimed that because we have not observed the mechanics of quantum mechanics, they are unobservable. You imply that because something is unobservable, it takes faith that Atheists cannot have. You have neither shown that the mechanics of QM are unobservable, nor that it takes faith to conclude (based on evidence) that something is unobservable, nor that Atheists cannot have faith.

As for QM, I'm afraid I moved more toward practical optics after my early theoretical physics studies, but I maintain that your basic premise -- that the mechanism of QM is unknowable because QM suggests that simultaneous knowledge of position and momentum at a fixed time is impossible -- is quite unsubstantiated. In this case, it doesn't really matter how well you understand current QM theory, but how well you can back the assumptions in your logical arguments.

 

[Holy Roller]

Don't you just love n00bs with grand pronouncements!

They're so cute.

Dude I'm straight.