Dude, props for a sense of humor. I didn't think you had it in you. Minus one for punctuation though.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh how cool. A laser specialist.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.
OK, posts in the spirit of levity. You must have read my thread in the other forum.Dude, props for a sense of humor. I didn't think you had it in you. Minus one for punctuation though.
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."
Where on that screen the photon strikes only G-d knows for certain
I can't see this as a false dichotomy, either, because
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.
- Atheism exists because there's the faith that G-d can't be proven to exist (the fundamental postulate of Atheism). And,
- We have established that faith in cause-and-effect can't be proven to exist (uncertainty principle). Resulting in:
- The Atheist necessarily abandoning belief in quantum mechanics as a bona-fide branch of science.
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.
You defended the Atheists because my idea wasn't convincing? Isn't that the purpose of this or any thread? To make the reader convinced of my idea? And if that's so, then why defend the Atheist at the outset?I noticed your "strategy" guide, and all I can say is: this is your thread, this is your theory. And when you started it, you were condescending, first to atheists and then Ph.D students. And your theory is still far from convincing at this time. This is why I defended the atheists.
Yet you didn't bring anything up to the Atheists and their posting. How come?Please don't get me wrong on this, I'm not trying to start off another bout of flaming - I'm just illustrating the reason why people aren't too enamoured with your first topic here. Brusqueness occurred on both sides - not that that justifies any of it - but you also help set the pace and tone of your own thread, not just the atheists. Don't forget your own strategy either in this.
Then why did two of them report my posts even though the evidence strongly supports their clear violations of the rules? The only answer, of course, is they want to eliminate a political and intellectual enemy.And I can tell you from personal experience, that despite a significant atheist presence on this board, they are not trying to get any of the "religious intelligentsia" to leave.
Go to this thread of mine. There's a guy named Ringo84. Look at his Faith Icon, then read his posts:There are plenty of Christian scientists, and academics (like myself) and generally well informed people on this board, and as a general rule, people are what they claim to be in terms of faith icon. However, we do not particularly want to engage with yet someone else who acts like a trolling know-it-all, who questions faith at the drop of a hat. We get enough of that from the YEC crowd.
I think both you and deamiter misunderstand my position. I do not subscribe to the school of thought that says, "if there's something man doesn't understand, then goddidit." Quite the contrary; I have theutmost confidence in humanity's ability to solve technical and scientific dilemmas.Maybe I was thinking too much on this quote - but I think it's an attempt to use a similar god of gaps argument. "Scientists don't know, but God does" kind of thing; and then to imply that to have faith in single photon diffraction is equivalent to faith in God.
Maybe this wasn't what you were trying to do - if you were, you'd have to answer a whole load of other claims about God too (such as his existence, for one, and his creation of us - although funnily enough being a perfect quantum mechanical observer isn't one of them. Again, it's a bit of a Chuck Norris fact, and far from the whole picture of God) And what does it matter if God knows both x and p? He's not exactly going to tell us, and it's telling that QM still makes perfect sense despite, nay, because of its inherent uncertainty. It's not an arbitrary line where science ends and God begins.
This is becoming circular.Everything that is based around uncertainty is understandable, predictable, and perfectly and consistently reproducible, 100% of the time.
Now, I ask again: if you were to build a lab around God, would you get the same level of reproducibility if you empirically tested him? If you were to go around asking for miracles for the purposes of empirical testing, would you get the same level of reproducibility? If you did a double-blind test of "work the Almighty does in the hearts of man, would you get a consistent, reproducible, empirical result? I seriously doubt it. In fact, I would think you're less likely to be able to apply the same empirical standards to God, seeing as God commands us not to put him to the test.
Bear in mind Cabal, that the purpose of the thread is to illustrate Atheist folly in this regard. It isn't intended to prove the existence of G-d.I'm not saying personal testimony and experiences of God aren't valid, I just believe they don't count as empirical evidence of God.
That's all fine and dandy. G-d serves far more functions than just establishing and maintaining a relationship with His people, however.This is why I don't make a big deal of them here, and I'm sure this is why most people aren't going to be swayed by this part of the argument - the only thing that's going to change someone's mind is to "taste and see that the Lord is good."
Off-topic, but I even see the presence of G-d in their unbelief. It's not really unbelief, but rather resentment and anger at G-d. This resentment is caused by selfishness. If I got someone angry by having said that, then I hit a nerve. They must ask themselves why.A personal experience of their own. That's my guiding principle. No attempt of mine at a "clever" scientifically based argument, overconfidently delivered, is going to convince anyone to come to the Lord - only the Lord himself in his power can do that. And even then, this is a hard line to follow - many people here are former believers.
Lol. Well I guess you're admitting and siding with me on this, while also bearing a greater burden on the obligation of my initial aim--the aim of illustrating that uncertainty can't be certain and as a consequence, Atheists have to abandon quantum mechanics as a viable, tenable science.So, I really don't think I can agree with your argument - I think it's trying to catch atheists out on a fairly inconsequential technicality, while falling victim to something much more significant than a technicality - subjectivity. At most, atheists might "lose" quantum mechanics (again, though, uncertainty is hardly a major flaw of QM). But they don't then have to accept that God is true.
So are you a sock of a Mod, otherwise how would you know who reported your post ?Then why did two of them report my posts even though the evidence strongly supports their clear violations of the rules? The only answer, of course, is they want to eliminate a political and intellectual enemy.
A valid question and my answer is this: You will get the same results if you test the existence of almighty G-d as you would if you fire a photon at the double-slit. And suffice it to say, in both cases, you will have no empirical way to predict:
G-d also created the Universe. There is no way to observe this action of creation. If G-d were to create outside the bounds of cause-and-effect (the only way to create without violating conservation of mass or energy laws), we could never observe the process that gave rise to the creating, because the observation will take place in the framework of cause-and-effect (the instrument that does the observing is built on cause and effect princeples, such as a photon detector. See illustration, below), yet G-d is doing his creating outside the limits of cause-and-effect.
- where the photon will fall on the screen after it emerges from the double-slit, and
- in a direct way any action by G-d. This means that if G-d works some manner in a human's life, there is no way to prove that it was G-d doing the work using the scientific method.
We know G-d was creating (the Universe, for example), because we can see the effects of the creation: the known Universe.
Bear in mind Cabal, that the purpose of the thread is to illustrate Atheist folly in this regard. It isn't intended to prove the existence of G-d.
That's all fine and dandy. G-d serves far more functions than just establishing and maintaining a relationship with His people, however.
He has an entire Universe to run.
Off-topic, but I even see the presence of G-d in their unbelief. It's not really unbelief, but rather resentment and anger at G-d. This resentment is caused by selfishness. If I got someone angry by having said that, then I hit a nerve. They must ask themselves why.
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.
Please avoid the temptation of replying in this thread unless your reply is directly related to the subject-matter at hand. Posting these inane replies is not allowed.So are you a sock of a Mod, otherwise how would you know who reported your post ?
Since every knee shall bow to Him and every tongue shall confess His name, you'll find out about the almighty G-d soon enough.Who the hell is this 'G-d' fellow?
Please avoid the temptation of replying in this thread unless your reply is directly related to the subject-matter at hand. Posting these inane replies is not allowed.
If you have a question to ask me, you may use the 'Private Message' feature. You have a post count sufficient enough to permit you to do so. Thank you.
Uh oh moderators playing games.
Please avoid the temptation of replying in this thread unless your reply is directly related to the subject-matter at hand. Posting these inane replies is not allowed.
If you have a question to ask me, you may use the 'Private Message' feature. You have a post count sufficient enough to permit you to do so. Thank you.
Since every knee shall bow to Him and every tongue shall confess His name, you'll find out about the almighty G-d soon enough.
Selah.
If I were Jewish I'd just refer to Him as "Mr. Tetragrammaton". It sounds so cool and sci-fi like.
It's positively tetragrammatonic!
This is hardly an "inane" comment. I too am curious how you know who reported your posts. Having had a couple of my posts reported in the past I'm curious how this works.
Did the reporter tell you you were being reported by them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?