Quantum Mechanics and the Incompetence of Atheism.

[Cabal]

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?

Sure, that's the idea of a thread. What isn't the idea is to come in so sure of yourself you make an OP whose title and tone (incompetence isn't a particularly thoughtful choice of words, and calling atheism a religion that you've defined yourself, incorrectly, isn't going to win you any fans either) suggests that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong (especially fallacious while holding an unconvincing argument). Given the amount of presumption in this thread, combined with telling people to leave the thread, or in some cases, not even log into CF (a public discussion forum, of all places!) - combined with your self-important "atheist hunter" title, plus trying to stir it up among the mods, it was obvious from the word go that you have an agenda here. The tone of your previous CF posts, combined with your richarddawkins thread, made it pretty obvious to me even before I replied that you were looking for trouble. However, I did not defend the atheists from the outset, although the thread title was condescending. I initially posted in response to your topic and your PhD remarks.

Not one of these blatant and arrogant from the Atheists replies did you consider. And they all came (or most came) before my critique of Shrodinger's metaphor.

Yet you didn't bring anything up to the Atheists and their posting. How come?

I don't even know why I bothered to get into this argument. As I said - why do you expect people to defend you when you're acting like a complete troll from the beginning?

You're the "atheist hunter" who's try to stir things up unnecessarily around here. You're on your own. I've been a CF member for a year and a regular poster on this board for months, and I know the format of this board, and I know the people on it. You are, simply put, a newbie. I wasn't convinced by your argument and I still am not, I was convinced you came here with an agenda to push (i.e trolling) and I still am, and your thread title was and still is condescending to atheists.

The main reason I just gave you a big lecture was because you wrote a huge snitch to the mods (who you're also checking up on), asking them to arbitrarily ban atheists from your topic. I don't care how much you dislike atheists, or how much of an "atheist hunter" you think you are - if that's the kind of ball you want to play by whining about stuff and begging for post restrictions off this board instead of just using the proper procedure and reporting posts, then I will call you on it on this board at every turn.

(also, the irony in denouncing an alleged conspiracy to get the "religious intelligentsia" removed from a forum and then requesting a ban on atheists did break my irony meter somewhat)

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.

They're not acting collectively. You have done nothing but flame, bait and troll from the word go. Get this conspiracy theory out of your head.

Go to this thread of mine. There's a guy named Ringo84. Look at his Faith Icon, then read his posts:
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7280242

I know who he is. He's probably one of the sanest people on the Politics board, largely because he's rational and not a raving jingoist. How is this relevant, again?

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.
Please also understand that uncertainty is not a scientific dilemma; it's a fact of physical reality. This Universe was made in such a way that there are limits set. Moving faster than light speed would be one of them. It's not a matter of scientific difficulty and technical challenge that we can't move faster than the speed of light; it's a matter of scientific law that we can't move faster than the speed of light. Uncertainty would be another.
You and deamiter seem to think that c can = a speed greater than 300K/sec if we were only smart enough as a species to overcome this speed. I have bad news for you two. The speed of light cannot be broken. That's why Einstein called c the "Universal Constant".
Likewise, you and demiter seem to think that both position and momentum can be found out--if we were only smart enough to find out how.
If you're thinking, "I don't think that", or "That's not what we're thinking. We know that G-d set limits in our Universe." then can you please explain this post from Deamiter (I'm assuming you agree with it, since you didn't challenge it):

Your turn for an unnecessary physics lesson, it would seem

Don't worry about Deamiter's posts when replying to me, worry about mine. Use my explanations. Don't assume I agree when I haven't said anything. This is your topic. I'm discussing this with you.

You said:

Where on that screen the photon strikes only G-d knows for certain

Nothing I said implied that I thought uncertainty or c could be overcome. Maybe you are thinking of "And what does it matter if God knows both x and p?" I based this on the above quote. Seems to me like it's you who believe that x and p are simultaneously knowable by at least one being.

This is becoming circular.
You say everything about uncertainty is predictable. If this is the case, then consider Young's double-slit experiment. Fire one photon out of a device that can emit photons one at a time.
Now tell me where on the screen that photon will fall after it leaves the emitter and crosses past the two slits. You can't tell me where that photon will fall? Because it's uncertain where that photon will fall? Then if it's uncertain where the photon will fall, then how is uncertainty predictable?

Everything based on uncertainty - the things listed in your OP. Not uncertainty itself. Everything based on uncertainty is consistently reproducible and is well understood. This applies to entanglement and tunnelling. And I fail to see how inherent uncertainty is somehow reason for atheists to give up qm when it's the very thing that makes it work. I can't say it often enough: although it is inherent uncertainty, we can identify it, quantify it, experiment into its nature and explain it. And as a result, it explains a multitude of wondrous effects.

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:

1. where the photon will fall on the screen after it emerges from the double-slit, and
2. 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.

Not talking about uncertainty itself or its God equivalent, I'm talking about the implied effects, which are well-defined. The effect you stated was "work the Almighty does in the hearts of man." All experiences of God are personal, with some degree of subjectivity. They are not external, objective and empirical and they are not well-defined and reproducible (every person being different puts things at a definite disadvantage). So, not even remotely comparable to quantum mechanics.

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.
We know G-d was creating (the Universe, for example), because we can see the effects of the creation: the known Universe.

Not comparable. We can set up a quantum mechanical system in an existant universe and make accurate predictions with it, even though it's based on uncertainty. And we can do this as often as we like. Nothing existed pre-creation, and God's only done this the once as far as we'll ever know (and that's a tricky one, otherwise the Cre and Evo board would be out of a job). QM still seems a lot more reliable.

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.

Should hope not, if you think "work the Almighty does in the hearts of man," is as good as a science experiment.

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.

Or it could just be because you're broad-brushing people you don't even know and acting like any other troll who comes here thinking he can change everyone's mind. Just a thought.

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.

Lol. No, I wasn't. I was assuming your argument was true for the sake of making the point I wanted to make. Hence the quote marks. You still have work to do. Quantum mechanics is only made a more powerful explanatory tool by its uncertainty, which can still produce objective results. And yet you think subjective experiences of God are equivalent???

 

[Blackrend]

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/g-d.html

"Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better. Observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it."

Lolwut!? That's a bit obsessive, don't you think? And rather pointless, since anyone who knows how to use a keyboard can just write in the 'O' anyway?

It's ok, Holy Roller, I don't think G-d knows how to use the internet...

I mean God.... *backspacebackspacebackspace* MWAHAHA!!

 

[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 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.

Oops! Looks like I spoke too soon. Holy Roller has more.

So are you a sock of a Mod, otherwise how would you know who reported your post ?

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.

The arrogance has now taken the form of dictates: " Posting these inane replies is not allowed." In other words,

"I, Holy Roller, get to decide what is and is not allowed in threads I start." ​

 

[Holy Roller]

"Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better. Observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it."

Lolwut!? That's a bit obsessive, don't you think? And rather pointless, since anyone who knows how to use a keyboard can just write in the 'O' anyway?

It's ok, Holy Roller, I don't think G-d knows how to use the internet...

I mean God.... *backspacebackspacebackspace* MWAHAHA!!

Now I'd ordinarily say something like "Cabal, do you see what I mean? Here I'm being trolled by an Atheist. Dude is saying I'm obsessive and whatnot." But after reading his latest post, I don't think it will do any good.

*sigh*
Anyway. Blackrend. Do you want to add something? I still say that you guys can't claim quantum mechanics is a valid branch of science because of the uncertainty relation. I tried explaining this in exquisite depth to Cabal, but it's talking to walls. What do you think?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I still say that you guys can't claim quantum mechanics is a valid branch of science because of the uncertainty relation.

Is it observable?
Does it make predictions?
Does it obey certain imuteable rules?
Is it supported by experimental evidence?
Are said experiments repeatable?

If yes, then its science.

 

[Blackrend]

Now I'd ordinarily say something like "Cabal, do you see what I mean? Here I'm being trolled by an Atheist. Dude is saying I'm obsessive and whatnot." But after reading his latest post, I don't think it will do any good.

*sigh*
Anyway. Blackrend. Do you want to add something? I still say that you guys can't claim quantum mechanics is a valid branch of science because of the uncertainty relation. I tried explaining this in exquisite depth to Cabal, but it's talking to walls. What do you think?

I think you unfairly attacked Cabal by questioning his faith. That in itself was uncalled for.

But, as I mentioned, I don't know jack squat about about Quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, my formal knowledge of science ends at High School Freshman Biology and a Junior course in Universe Dynamics. All I can really say is that uncertainty is part of what makes science the amazing thing that it is. Science is all about bridging the gaps... and who knows? Someday we might fill in those gaps. I'm willing to bet that, in time, as our understanding of the universe increases, that all of the 'why?'s and 'how?'s will be answered.

So yes, when it all boils down to it, I do have faith. I have faith that science will provide mankind with further understanding of our existence and the origin of the universe. But Atheism is not a dogma, it's not indoctrination, and it's not religion. Atheism itself is simply lack of belief in a God(s), and nothing more. And there isn't a thing wrong with that.

You get your jollies by asking a question that is extremely difficult to answer, then claim that because there are 'unknowable' aspects of Quantum Theory that Atheists are Religious by nature. Admit it: You only came here to cause trouble, troll/"hunt" us, and get a few good punches in at the same time.

 

[Holy Roller]

Sure, that's the idea of a thread. What isn't the idea is to come in so sure of yourself you make an OP whose title and tone (incompetence isn't a particularly thoughtful choice of words, and calling atheism a religion that you've defined yourself, incorrectly, isn't going to win you any fans either) suggests that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong (especially fallacious while holding an unconvincing argument). Given the amount of presumption in this thread, combined with telling people to leave the thread, or in some cases, not even log into CF (a public discussion forum, of all places!) - combined with your self-important "atheist hunter" title, plus trying to stir it up among the mods, it was obvious from the word go that you have an agenda here. The tone of your previous CF posts, combined with your richarddawkins thread, made it pretty obvious to me even before I replied that you were looking for trouble. However, I did not defend the atheists from the outset, although the thread title was condescending. I initially posted in response to your topic and your PhD remarks.

I hope to the Almighty that this is the last contribution you'll make to this thread.
Anyway. THere are too many insults here for me to list. I can't report it, because there are so many insults here that it'll clog up the Moderators router!

1. I was called arrogant because I said Atheism is incompatable with quantum mechanics.
2. I was called egregarious, because you said I thought I was right from the very start.
3. I was called a fool for claiming Atheism to be a religion
4. I was called overbearing for requesting people refrain from posting material that was off-topic
5. I ws called self-important because I'm the Atehist Hunter
6. I was called a troublemaker because I had a bad experience at richarddawkins
7. And called deceptive for posting without first logging on (impossible to do, BTW)

I don't even know why I bothered to get into this argument. As I said - why do you expect people to defend you when you're acting like a complete troll from the beginning?

1. And now I'm being called a troll or at least acting like one.

You're the "atheist hunter" who's try to stir things up unnecessarily around here. You're on your own. I've been a CF member for a year and a regular poster on this board for months, and I know the format of this board, and I know the people on it. You are, simply put, a newbie.

Now you're obviously sounding like you're ready to fill out a Moderator application. Flaming people like myself (an extreme rarity in most speres; almost nonexistent on a religious forum) is absolutely not! the way of going about doing that.

I wasn't convinced by your argument and I still am not, I was convinced you came here with an agenda to push (i.e trolling) and I still am, and your thread title was and still is condescending to atheists.

Repeated for the umpteenth time. You're not convinced about mt argument because you're too filled with passions and emotions to be concerned about being swayed by this debate.

The main reason I just gave you a big lecture was because you wrote a huge snitch to the mods (who you're also checking up on), asking them to arbitrarily ban atheists from your topic. I don't care how much you dislike atheists, or how much of an "atheist hunter" you think you are - if that's the kind of ball you want to play by whining about stuff and begging for post restrictions off this board instead of just using the proper procedure and reporting posts, then I will call you on it on this board at every turn.

I have to go, but it's time you first dispense with injecting your feelings into this thread . That way you may either come to a consensus or come up with something that would persuade me to see your side of things. You have done neither. Instead, you have injected feelings and emotions into a topic that demanded some degree of analysis.

 

[Holy Roller]

Moderators, can you please delete this thread? What was initially a stimulating discussion topic had been hijacked by varius individuals; and with anything hijacked, crashed into something resembling a heap of smoldering debris. Thank you in advance.
--Holy Roller

 

[pgp_protector]

Moderators, can you please delete this thread? What was initially a stimulating discussion topic had been hijacked by varius individuals; and with anything hijacked, crashed into something resembling a heap of smoldering debris. Thank you in advance.
--Holy Roller

Page saved to Local Archive

 

[Blackrend]

 

[Deamiter]

Oh how cool. A laser specialist.
Now you say that simultaneous knowledge of position and momentum (then you use the redundant "at a fixed time"???) is just a representation of our species lack of understanding of the matter, is that correct? This sounds kind of Einsteiniish. I was under the impression a classical solution can't be found; that we're left with uncertainty forever, according to equations. What about evanescent rays? What about entanglement? There's lots of stuff that depends on and is explained by uncertainty.

First off, it wasn't redundant, I was just a step ahead of myself -- I wrote "simultaneous knowledge" and then realized that one could simultaneously know the velocity and momentum of a particle, just at different times... I should have removed simultaneous as it modifies knowledge not the time of the measurement, but I'm not quite THAT anal about self-checking my grammar.

You're quite right, we are indeed left with uncertainty. But the uncertainty is not in the mechanics behind quantum mechanics (i.e. what causes the uncertainty). A fundamental uncertainty in position is not necessarily a lack of knowledge because it can be possible to fully characteristic a particle by its current state.

Again, I'm responding to your OP where you claim only the effects of QM can be observed -- that doesn't remotely follow from the fact that particles have a wave function. We might never nail down classical position/momentum, but the interactions and causes can be measured as you have repeatedly admitted (discussing evanescence for example).

I'd like to return to what I said in my post -- the problem with your conclusions isn't with physics, its with your assumptions linking current theories to potential knowledge and theology. Essentially, you're saying because God can't do something impossible (i.e. know something he can't know) he can't be all-powerful. Just because we can't know something unknowable doesn't mean we can't fully characterize a phenomenon.

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.

On a different topic, you know Gabor created like a rudimentary hologram using the mercury green line. Just how high in quality can holograms become without resorting to stimulated emission sources?
Can't I just use a stack of interference filters and get an awesome hologram using the light coming out of the filters and for the reconstruction beam?
Also, how can I create a hologram using the very popular 360nm? I know alot of emultions just end up absorbing all that radiation; is there a solution you're aware of? I'm thinking of using a stack of interference filters for that purpose (to get a good, coherent and monochromatic 360nm) for both exposure and reconstruction.

Oooh, homemade holograms! I've always wanted to do this and probably will when I buy a house in half a year or so. Do you have fancy cushined tables or are you going for the always-useful pile-o-sand?

I've never tried for holograms with 360nm, everything I've done was with HeNes. I understand Gabor used a Mercury arc-lamp as the most coherent source available before lasers. The significance of the Mercury lamp was primarily strong, isolated emission line. It's really hard though, and impossible to get any depth because the source can't be coherent enough. Coherence is the most important for holograms, so I suggest you stay away from point sources -- even if they are narrowband as the mercury line can be.

 

[Cabal]

I hope to the Almighty that this is the last contribution you'll make to this thread.
Anyway. THere are too many insults here for me to list. I can't report it, because there are so many insults here that it'll clog up the Moderators router!

1. I was called arrogant because I said Atheism is incompatable with quantum mechanics.
2. I was called egregarious, because you said I thought I was right from the very start.
3. I was called a fool for claiming Atheism to be a religion
4. I was called overbearing for requesting people refrain from posting material that was off-topic
5. I ws called self-important because I'm the Atehist Hunter
6. I was called a troublemaker because I had a bad experience at richarddawkins
7. And called deceptive for posting without first logging on (impossible to do, BTW)

Well, normally when you file a report there's lots of room in the box for you to outline your complaints with a single post. I'm sure there'd be room for this list, although I'd recommend taking out the words I didn't even use like "fool", "overbearing", "egregarious" and "point 7."

*checks*

Yup, there's room!

Hope this helps!

obviously sounding like you're ready to fill out a Moderator application. Flaming people like myself (an extreme rarity in most speres; almost nonexistent on a religious forum) is absolutely not! the way of going about doing that.

It's good that you realise this: now please realise this is applicable to you, from the start of the thread.

I have to go, but it's time you first dispense with injecting your feelings into this thread . That way you may either come to a consensus or come up with something that would persuade me to see your side of things. You have done neither. Instead, you have injected feelings and emotions into a topic that demanded some degree of analysis.

The analysis is ready and waiting to be analysed. It's right there, after the "emotional" part.

 

[paug]

Please, guys, lets not disrespect him. I mean, he is after all the ATHEIST HUNTER(c).

 

[Morcova]

Moderators, can you please delete this thread? What was initially a stimulating discussion topic had been hijacked by varius individuals; and with anything hijacked, crashed into something resembling a heap of smoldering debris. Thank you in advance.
--Holy Roller

And that's a concession of a point if i've ever seen one.

 

[Morcova]

Please, guys, lets not disrespect him. I mean, he is after all the ATHEIST HUNTER(c).

I don't feel at all hunted.

Amused. Yes.

But not hunted.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Let's get this trainwreck back on track, shall we? Regardless of the invective hurled by both sides, let's consider some of the philosophical underpinnings of HR's question.

Basically, as far as I can tell we are at: "Quantum Mechanics is super weird, ergo God exists." The first part is indeed understandable.

Even Neils Bohr said "If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."

So, yeah, it's weird. It's often counterintuitive and difficult to parse. I am a chemist and I'm thankful each and every day that I don't have to work directly with quantum. I get to enjoy the macroscopic world where quantum effects can be overlooked enough so that I know when I put a liquid in a beaker it will not "tunnel" out. But indeed it underlies everything I do.

As others have pointed out, QM works precisely because it makes predictions that are consistent. The weirdness of the double-slit experiments point out how different things are at that level, but certainly the massive advances in chemical sciences and physics since the establishment of QM have shown the raw utility of this as a purely scientific (albeit often strange and weird aspect of reality).

Now onto the "philosophy" section: OK, so QM is weird and limits how much we can "know" about anything at any time. Does that mean that there is, indeed, a being who resides outside of time who has the following attributes:

1. Dearly loves a small band of nomadic peoples in the Middle East and has elevated them as his chosen people throughout all eternity

2. Dislikes the eating of pork and lobster

3. Advocated the merciless slaughter of certain groups (like the Amalekites) in furtherance of the land-acquisition of the "Chosen"

4. Required (at one time) animal sacrifices, in fact preferred animal sacrifices over vegetal sacrifices as shown in the Cain and Abel story. Has rather specific requirements as to the construction of a temple as outlined in painfully boring detail in Exodus 25-27.

5. Established as a set of rules whereby mankind must be atoned to Him by the blood sacrifice of himself incarnated into human form yet never relinquishing full divinity, sacrificed to himself by the same people who were in need of atonement.

This seems to be the big gap between the "Uncertainty Principle" and the Certainty of Judeo-Christianity. While we are limited to our knowledge of some aspects of physical systems by the Uncertainty Principle, I'm unsure how this provides us with any certainty that there is such a "God" out there. Just that we are limited in our knowledge of some aspects of physical systems by the Uncertainty Principle.

 

[Holy Roller]

Let's get this trainwreck back on track, shall we? Regardless of the invective hurled by both sides, let's consider some of the philosophical underpinnings of HR's question.

Basically, as far as I can tell we are at: "Quantum Mechanics is super weird, ergo God exists." The first part is indeed understandable.

Even Neils Bohr said "If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."

So, yeah, it's weird. It's often counterintuitive and difficult to parse. I am a chemist and I'm thankful each and every day that I don't have to work directly with quantum. I get to enjoy the macroscopic world where quantum effects can be overlooked enough so that I know when I put a liquid in a beaker it will not "tunnel" out. But indeed it underlies everything I do.

As others have pointed out, QM works precisely because it makes predictions that are consistent. The weirdness of the double-slit experiments point out how different things are at that level, but certainly the massive advances in chemical sciences and physics since the establishment of QM have shown the raw utility of this as a purely scientific (albeit often strange and weird aspect of reality).

Now onto the "philosophy" section: OK, so QM is weird and limits how much we can "know" about anything at any time. Does that mean that there is, indeed, a being who resides outside of time who has the following attributes:

1. Dearly loves a small band of nomadic peoples in the Middle East and has elevated them as his chosen people throughout all eternity

2. Dislikes the eating of pork and lobster

3. Advocated the merciless slaughter of certain groups (like the Amalekites) in furtherance of the land-acquisition of the "Chosen"

4. Required (at one time) animal sacrifices, in fact preferred animal sacrifices over vegetal sacrifices as shown in the Cain and Abel story. Has rather specific requirements as to the construction of a temple as outlined in painfully boring detail in Exodus 25-27.

5. Established as a set of rules whereby mankind must be atoned to Him by the blood sacrifice of himself incarnated into human form yet never relinquishing full divinity, sacrificed to himself by the same people who were in need of atonement.

This seems to be the big gap between the "Uncertainty Principle" and the Certainty of Judeo-Christianity. While we are limited to our knowledge of some aspects of physical systems by the Uncertainty Principle, I'm unsure how this provides us with any certainty that there is such a "God" out there. Just that we are limited in our knowledge of some aspects of physical systems by the Uncertainty Principle.

A good post (lol, we're getting past the "Yep! Another fundie who just got done reading the 'QM for Dummies book'"). And I'm afraid that you may be going a little overboard here, though. It seems as if when you think of 'G-D', you think of 'merciless sadist, ruling over the Universe with an iron fist; His little humans he created the hapless subjects of his maddening realm.'
Is this correct?
And if it is, would you be willing to revise that a little?
How about G-D as the Creator of the known Universe, who knew a little blue planet (earth) would have been established around 8B years after His creation. THis planet, by criteria met according to the physical makeup of the solar system it belongs to and its proximity to its star (Sun) would ultimately have a radically advanced lifeform emerge on its surface (homo sapiens).
Creator G-d then called these organisms His chosen 'people' (chosen lifeforms, since such an advanced, intelligent life is somewhat unique in the Universe by virtue of probability). Since Creator G-d created the Universe, we can't know his mind; it is enough for us to know that He is our G-d.
In this light, we can dispense with the battle stories of bloody revenge as is read in certain parts of the Bible.

Would you be willing to believe that such a G-d exists? If not, why not? This 'being' is allowed to exist and work outside the framework of cause and effect.

This is relevant, because if you answer 'yes' to the question, then you're of not much help in this debate, since the debate seeks to illustrate a problem with someone who is incabable of believing that such a 'being' (Creator G-d) exists, yet freely believes that other, unpredictable phenomena can occur. In other words, the thread applies to the militant Atheist, only.

 

[thaumaturgy]

And I'm afraid that you may be going a little overboard here, though. It seems as if when you think of 'G-D', you think of 'merciless sadist, ruling over the Universe with an iron fist; His little humans he created the hapless subjects of his maddening realm.'
Is this correct?

No. I'm thinking of the Judeo-Christian God whose adherents have very specific rules and descriptions of Him. Including, but not limited to, the avoidance of writing out His "full name" "GOD" in fear of someone later defacing it. That sort of thing.

And if it is, would you be willing to revise that a little?

Sure. But then we won't be talking about YHWH god will we?

How about G-D as the Creator of the known Universe,

Ahh, so the "theoretical" "god" that really has no meaning in relation to the god that most religious people worship. In fact, basically just a "mental construct of convenience into which anyone can pile any manner of stuff into no matter how illogical." OK.

Creator G-d then called these organisms His chosen 'people'

He did nothing of the sort. Since we have come back 'round to a God who decrees a "chosen people", I'm going to assume we are back to YHWH. He called one specific subset of his creation his "chosen" people. The rest he allowed to be mercilessly slaughtered by said chosen people.

------------------------------------
1 Sam 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
------------------------------------

(chosen lifeforms, since such an advanced, intelligent life is somewhat unique in the Universe by virtue of probability). Since Creator G-d created the Universe, we can't know his mind; it is enough for us to know that He is our G-d.

Yours, surely, but woe be unto you if you had the bad fortune to be born an Amalekite! Creator? Who creates only to destroy?

In this light, we can dispense with the battle stories of bloody revenge as is read in certain parts of the Bible.

ONLY if we ignore the aspects of the God in question. If we want to construct a creator god that bears no resemblance whatsoever to Yahweh God, then fine. But we are left with a hollow shell of uselessness to the religious, or you have to defend every single god ever conceived of.

Would you be willing to believe that such a G-d exists?

No. I see no reason to assume this to be the case anymore than I see a reason to assume a magical unicorn was the initiator of the Big Bang. Sure it's possible, but what's the point? Where's the reason to believe such?

If not, why not? This 'being' is allowed to exist and work outside the framework of cause and effect.

Then how can you come to know of this being who is so foreign to the simple hominid mind? I can't. What info do you have?

This is relevant, because if you answer 'yes' to the question, then you're of not much help in this debate, since the debate seeks to illustrate a problem with someone who is incabable of believing that such a 'being' (Creator G-d) exists, yet freely believes that other, unpredictable phenomena can occur. In other words, the thread applies to the militant Atheist, only.

No, as a "Weak Atheist" (look it up if you don't know what the specific term "weak" means in this context), I fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is no god. What that means in real-world work-a-day existence is if you want to convince someone there is a creator God it isn't enough to just say "Well, there coulda been!" Because then you have set up the system such that everyone has to disprove your point. That is defense of a universal negative and no matter how militant one is or how non-militant one is, that is not possible...logically.

ERGO, if you wish to impose the idea of a Creator God, then you must have some aspect of proof. That usually starts with a "description" of said god that can be tested for or against.

If you wish to open God up so much that he becomes a meaningless construct into which anyone and everyone can put their most sincere wishes and dreams and hopes, like some sort of magical box, then you have created an unfalsifiable construct. Untestable. Unscientific.

 

[Holy Roller]

You're quite right, we are indeed left with uncertainty. But the uncertainty is not in the mechanics behind quantum mechanics (i.e. what causes the uncertainty). A fundamental uncertainty in position is not necessarily a lack of knowledge because it can be possible to fully characteristic a particle by its current state.

I'll agree with your assertion here that uncertainty of position is fundamental, and that this uncertainty does not represent a lack of knowledge about physical reality (in this instance, quantum phenomena).

Again, I'm responding to your OP where you claim only the effects of QM can be observed -- that doesn't remotely follow from the fact that particles have a wave function. We might never nail down classical position/momentum, but the interactions and causes can be measured as you have repeatedly admitted (discussing evanescence for example).

I'd like to return to what I said in my post -- the problem with your conclusions isn't with physics, its with your assumptions linking current theories to potential knowledge and theology. Essentially, you're saying because God can't do something impossible (i.e. know something he can't know) he can't be all-powerful. Just because we can't know something unknowable doesn't mean we can't fully characterize a phenomenon.

I'll wait for clarification on this...

Oooh, homemade holograms! I've always wanted to do this and probably will when I buy a house in half a year or so. Do you have fancy cushined tables or are you going for the always-useful pile-o-sand?

Well, if you have a spare $100 lying around, you can actually create a ton of high-quality transmission holograms, and you don't even need an isolation table.
A company called integraf sells holographic kits from which youi can create reflection holograms.
Reflection holograms are a special kind of transmission hologram; unlike the usual transmission hologram, with creating reflection holograms you don't need to spacially separate the laser for an object and a refernce beam, and it works like this:
Get something you'd want for a hologram (stack of coins, small porcelain doll, etc.). Set it on a table so it won't move.
Take the holographic plate (think 3" x 5"), and rest it on the object you want to film.
Now fire the laser (gallium arsenide laser--the kind laser pointers are made out of) with a spacial filter on it (so the laser beam turns into a laser spread--enough laser spread to cover teh entire film area) onto the film.

What's happening?

The laser light leaves the laser, passes thru the holographic plate, reflects off the object being recorded, and this reflection from the object reflects back on the plate.
Thus, we have a reference beam shining on one side of the plate (the side of the plate that's facing the laser), and an object beam shining on the obverse side of the plate (the side of the plate that's facing your object and resting on your object).
Develop and voila, a transmission hologram!
Integraf sells the kits for like $130 here (they also have specials on old inventory):
http://www.holokits.com/holography_kit.htm

 

[TheGnome]

Poe