Total Posts:266|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Atheist Paradox

anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 2:04:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would like to discuss what I call the Atheist Paradox. This paradox is not limited to only the Atheist however. There is an underlying theme I have noticed between the Atheist and the Theist alike, and it's called the "Uncertainty Principle. According to the Uncertainty Principle

"the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa." Werner Heisenberg (1927)

The Uncertainty Principle is basically an excuse for Scientists to never have to "prove" anything ever again. Let me explain, and I'm going to try really hard to get all my facts straight. I noticed I've used some wrong terms when discussing this with others, so hopefully I can present this correctly and coherently. If you don't wish to read the sources I provide, please take the time to see where I'm getting my sources from. I'm going to try to avoid Wikipedia unless to explain something more clearly.

The Uncertainty Principle is a "Probabilistic" concept. Because the momentum and position of a particle cannot be measured without disturbing one or the other, it is impossible to "determine" how a particle will react. Particles exhibit a Particle-Wave Duality, meaning that a particle can both act as a Particle, as well as a Wave. This theoretical contradiction is what has led to the Uncertainty Principle.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

From source "At its core, quantum mechanics can be regarded as a non-classical probability calculus resting upon a non-classical propositional logic."

When applied to logic, the equation is put like this-

"The value of the observable A lies in the range B."

This means that the "measurement of the observable A would yield (or will yield, or has yielded) a value in the set B". Therefore, according to this interpretation, nothing in the physical world can actually be "known" or "proven" because at the Quantum Level, there is no single correct Reality; there are only probabilities of what Reality may be.

Let give a few examples. According to Classical Physics, at the Big Bang everything that has ever existed was condensed into an infinitely small "Singularity". This is what Stephen Hawkins says about the Singularity.

http://www.hawking.org.uk...

From source "At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down."

So, because of the microwave radiation background in the Universe, Scientist had determined that the Universe did in fact have a beginning. The Laws of Cause and Effect, Physics, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics proved that the Universe could not have existed forever. However, Scientist didn't like this idea of a Singularity. If the Singularity is true, then this statement could be made-

Where does Love, Good, Evil, and Intelligence come from? Were they present within the Singularity? Does this mean the Singularity had Intelligence? If the Singularity contained Intelligence, did it contain the means by which to use that Intelligence? If it contained the means by which to use Intelligence, did it use this Intelligence to Cause the universe into existence?

Stephen Hawkins knows this, so later on from the same source he says

"This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency."

Well that's not good for the Atheist. If the Universe had a beginning and all things were condensed to the Singularity, then some "external agency" must have acted to bring about the Big Bang.

"Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion, that there was a singularity of infinite density in the past."

The Atheist do not want the Singularity to be true. If it is True, then that is undeniable proof that there is God. So what is the Scientist's explicit excuse to deny the Singularity?

"The focussing of our past light cone implied that time must have a beginning, if the General Theory of relativity is correct. But one might raise the question, of whether General Relativity really is correct. It certainly agrees with all the observational tests that have been carried out. However these test General Relativity, only over fairly large distances. We know that General Relativity can not be quite correct on very small distances, because it is a classical theory. This means, it doesn't take into account, the UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE of Quantum Mechanics, which says that an object can not have both a well defined position, and a well defined speed: the more accurately one measures the position, the less accurately one can measure the speed, and vice versa."

I now have no further reason to quote Stephen Hawkins on this matter. As you can see, he has simply used the Uncertainty Principle to explain why he can now make up whatever he wants to. If we take the observational Universe as A in the equation above, we can state that "the value of the observable Universe (A) is in the range of B". This means that whatever it is we observe, we can use whatever nonsense we wish to define a probability of what the actual Truth is.

Let's look at another example. This is the reason why what I'm saying will be denied by Atheist and Theist alike. There is something that we all like to hold on to dearly, unfortunately both Science and Scripture just doesn't allow such a thing. It is called Free Will. Prior to Scientist's practice of using the Uncertainty Principle to explain everything and nothing at the same time (the Uncertainty Principle allows this), Science used to Physically prove things. One thing that was proven time and time again is that the concept of Free Will is simply an illusion, or a "delusion" as the Scriptures put it. This is because of several reasons, mostly having to do with the Law of Cause and Effect. Because of Cause and Effect, an Effect can never come before it's initial Cause. I will quote Wikipedia so that this can be clearly understood.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(physics)

"In classical physics, a cause should always precede its effect. In relativity theory the equivalent restriction limits causes to the back (past) light cone of the event to be explained (the "effect"), and any effect of a cause must lie in the cause's front (future) light cone. These restrictions are consistent with the grounded belief (or assumption) that causal influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light and/or backwards in time."

Because the Speed of Light is the Universal speed limit, and nothing in the Physical Universe can travel faster than Light, Cause and Effect is fundamental in understanding that everything we do has some underlying Cause. This is called Determinism. Atheist do not like the idea of Determinism (even though it was explicitly an Atheist idea for many decades to argue against the Theist teaching of an eternal hell for the wicked) and Theist do not like Determinism because it means their god has determined some (actually most) people to hell without any fault of their own. However, Determinism is both Scientific and confirmed by many, many Scriptures. Now Scientist are changing their belief (they do that a lot) in Determinism. They have applied the Uncertainty Principle to state that because we live in a Probabilistic Universe, the Law of Cause and Effect should have no consequences on our Will.

I am running out of room so please do not respond to this post until I have finished my next post. Thank you.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 2:09:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 2:04:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
I would like to discuss what I call the Atheist Paradox.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. You're understanding of physics is appalling.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 2:10:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
One major contender of this idea is one of History Channel's favorite idealist Michio Kaku. According to Kaku, Quantum Mechanics prove we have Free Will. Here is a video from Kaku that shows his nonsense excuse for his conclusion.

https://m.youtube.com...

He reasons that because of the Uncertainty Principle, the Universe is not Determined, so we have Free Will. You see, Atheist don't like Determinism either because in order for Determinism to be true, then Classical Physics is true, and if Classical Physics is true, we have the Singularity as well as a "Determiner" that must have existed to bring about the initial Cause of the Universe; more undeniable "proof" that God exists. Here is an article from Stanford explaining Determinism. I'll quote the argument against Determinism from the article.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

From article "Many physicists in the past 60 years or so have been convinced of determinism's falsity, because they were convinced that (a) whatever the Final Theory is, it will be some recognizable variant of the family of Quantum mechanical theories; and (b) all quantum mechanical theories are non-deterministic. Both (a) and (b) are highly debatable"

This means that in order to understand if Determinism is true or not, we must have a better understanding of Quantum Mechanics. The problem is, we can never have an understanding of Quantum Mechanics as long as we keep the Uncertainty Principle. The Uncertainty Principle doesn't demand a formal Truth, only a Probability of what might be True.

That is until we introduce Pilot-Wave Theory. This is where I have been misrepresenting my argument. Pilot-Wave Theory was first introduced by Louis de Broglie in the 1920's. Rather than explaining Quantum Mechanics as Probabilistic, "Pilot-Wave Theory attempted to bring Quantum Mechanics back to a solid, coherent reality. Unfortunately, the Science community at that time dismissed Broglie's theory, which led to the famous debate between Einstein and Niels Bohr. Einstein famously stated "God doesn't play dice" where Bohr countered with "Einstein, stop telling God what to do". Bohr won the debate for some reason, and since then, Science has been using the Uncertainty Principle to explain anything it wants to, without ever having to provide proof.

However, Science is reevaluating Broglie's Pilot-Wave Theory, and the outcomes have been astonishing. Here are a few articles that explain what Broglie's theory means to the Scientific community.

http://www.pbs.org...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

http://m.phys.org...

http://www.wired.com...

Real Scientist are bringing back the idea that Quantum Mechanics actually works within the Physical Universe. This would bring us back to a Deterministic model of the Universe and would cause us to reevaluate all the strange excuses Scientist give for their positions on almost everything.

From the Wired article "In principle, however, the pilot-wave theory is deterministic: The future evolves dynamically from the past, so that, if the exact state of all the particles in the universe were known at a given instant, their states at all future times could be calculated."

From the same article "'The more things we understand and can provide a physical rationale for, the more difficult it will be to defend the "quantum mechanics is magic" perspective." John Bush

You see, the Atheist and the Theist alike both believe in Magic. They believe that because of the Uncertainty Principle, anything is conceivably possible, because nothing has been Determined by Cause and Effect. Therefore, they can make up whatever nonsense they want to, and never have to provide proof for their Theory, because the Uncertainty Principle can't "prove" anything.

The Atheist is now in a paradox. They require "proof" that God exists. However, according to their "theory" of the Uncertainty Principle, Science could never "prove" anything. If they decide to accept Pilot-Wave Theory (why not, it's more believable than any other Theory) they must return to a "determined" reality, which calls for a Determiner, who is the Most High. They must also admit that things like Love, Life, and the Universe could not have come about because of Quantum "probability", because there are no "probabilities". We humans have a limited understanding of the Universe, but God, the Great Cause of it all, has Determined all things to happen exactly how they happen.

To the Atheists that I've been discussing this with, I apologize for mixing my terms up. I've been referring to Pilot Wave Theory, but have been writing Particle-Wave Duality. This was an honest mistake on my part and I apologize for the confusion. "I hope I have now presented this in a way that we can both understand and discuss. Thank you for your time and God bless you all.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 3:44:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 2:09:42 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:04:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
I would like to discuss what I call the Atheist Paradox.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. You're understanding of physics is appalling.

Thank you DanneJeRussa. I realized that I made a huge mistake when I wrote to you on the other thread. Thank you for bearing with me and pointing out my mistakes. I've revised what I wrote in the second part of my post. I was mistaking Particle-Wave Duality for Pilot Wave Theory, and I see how this would cause a massive misunderstanding. Could you please look at what I wrote in the second half and point out any errors? Thank you and God bless you friend.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 3:47:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 3:44:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:09:42 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:04:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
I would like to discuss what I call the Atheist Paradox.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. You're understanding of physics is appalling.

Thank you DanneJeRussa. I realized that I made a huge mistake when I wrote to you on the other thread. Thank you for bearing with me and pointing out my mistakes. I've revised what I wrote in the second part of my post. I was mistaking Particle-Wave Duality for Pilot Wave Theory, and I see how this would cause a massive misunderstanding. Could you please look at what I wrote in the second half and point out any errors? Thank you and God bless you friend.

You have massive misunderstanding that only many paragraphs of explanations will require. It's best you took some physics courses and revisited your own posts a few years down the road when you begin to understand those concepts.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 4:04:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 3:47:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 3:44:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:09:42 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:04:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
I would like to discuss what I call the Atheist Paradox.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. You're understanding of physics is appalling.

Thank you DanneJeRussa. I realized that I made a huge mistake when I wrote to you on the other thread. Thank you for bearing with me and pointing out my mistakes. I've revised what I wrote in the second part of my post. I was mistaking Particle-Wave Duality for Pilot Wave Theory, and I see how this would cause a massive misunderstanding. Could you please look at what I wrote in the second half and point out any errors? Thank you and God bless you friend.

You have massive misunderstanding that only many paragraphs of explanations will require. It's best you took some physics courses and revisited your own posts a few years down the road when you begin to understand those concepts.

So are you saying that Pilot-Wave Theory is not valid? I think I have a good concept of Pilot-Wave Theory. For some reason I was confusing the term with Particle-Wave Duality. Would Pilot-Waves not eliminate the Uncertainty Principle?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 4:11:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 2:10:33 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
One major contender of this idea is one of History Channel's favorite idealist Michio Kaku. According to Kaku, Quantum Mechanics prove we have Free Will. Here is a video from Kaku that shows his nonsense excuse for his conclusion.

https://m.youtube.com...

He reasons that because of the Uncertainty Principle, the Universe is not Determined, so we have Free Will. You see, Atheist don't like Determinism either because in order for Determinism to be true, then Classical Physics is true, and if Classical Physics is true, we have the Singularity as well as a "Determiner" that must have existed to bring about the initial Cause of the Universe; more undeniable "proof" that God exists. Here is an article from Stanford explaining Determinism. I'll quote the argument against Determinism from the article.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

From article "Many physicists in the past 60 years or so have been convinced of determinism's falsity, because they were convinced that (a) whatever the Final Theory is, it will be some recognizable variant of the family of Quantum mechanical theories; and (b) all quantum mechanical theories are non-deterministic. Both (a) and (b) are highly debatable"

This means that in order to understand if Determinism is true or not, we must have a better understanding of Quantum Mechanics. The problem is, we can never have an understanding of Quantum Mechanics as long as we keep the Uncertainty Principle. The Uncertainty Principle doesn't demand a formal Truth, only a Probability of what might be True.

That is until we introduce Pilot-Wave Theory. This is where I have been misrepresenting my argument. Pilot-Wave Theory was first introduced by Louis de Broglie in the 1920's. Rather than explaining Quantum Mechanics as Probabilistic, "Pilot-Wave Theory attempted to bring Quantum Mechanics back to a solid, coherent reality. Unfortunately, the Science community at that time dismissed Broglie's theory, which led to the famous debate between Einstein and Niels Bohr. Einstein famously stated "God doesn't play dice" where Bohr countered with "Einstein, stop telling God what to do". Bohr won the debate for some reason, and since then, Science has been using the Uncertainty Principle to explain anything it wants to, without ever having to provide proof.

However, Science is reevaluating Broglie's Pilot-Wave Theory, and the outcomes have been astonishing. Here are a few articles that explain what Broglie's theory means to the Scientific community.

http://www.pbs.org...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

http://m.phys.org...

http://www.wired.com...

Real Scientist are bringing back the idea that Quantum Mechanics actually works within the Physical Universe. This would bring us back to a Deterministic model of the Universe and would cause us to reevaluate all the strange excuses Scientist give for their positions on almost everything.

From the Wired article "In principle, however, the pilot-wave theory is deterministic: The future evolves dynamically from the past, so that, if the exact state of all the particles in the universe were known at a given instant, their states at all future times could be calculated."

From the same article "'The more things we understand and can provide a physical rationale for, the more difficult it will be to defend the "quantum mechanics is magic" perspective." John Bush

You see, the Atheist and the Theist alike both believe in Magic. They believe that because of the Uncertainty Principle, anything is conceivably possible, because nothing has been Determined by Cause and Effect. Therefore, they can make up whatever nonsense they want to, and never have to provide proof for their Theory, because the Uncertainty Principle can't "prove" anything.

The Atheist is now in a paradox. They require "proof" that God exists. However, according to their "theory" of the Uncertainty Principle, Science could never "prove" anything. If they decide to accept Pilot-Wave Theory (why not, it's more believable than any other Theory) they must return to a "determined" reality, which calls for a Determiner, who is the Most High. They must also admit that things like Love, Life, and the Universe could not have come about because of Quantum "probability", because there are no "probabilities". We humans have a limited understanding of the Universe, but God, the Great Cause of it all, has Determined all things to happen exactly how they happen.

To the Atheists that I've been discussing this with, I apologize for mixing my terms up. I've been referring to Pilot Wave Theory, but have been writing Particle-Wave Duality. This was an honest mistake on my part and I apologize for the confusion. "I hope I have now presented this in a way that we can both understand and discuss. Thank you for your time and God bless you all.

Incorrect. Most atheists demand evidence, not proof. Proof only exists in mathematics. Once you get that into your head and stop trying to hijack physics to somehow discredit atheism you may actually be able to have a conversation that's not all cut and paste from other sites.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 4:17:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A couple of initial comments about what jumped out at me within the first few paragraphs.

At 5/1/2015 2:04:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
I would like to discuss what I call the Atheist Paradox. This paradox is not limited to only the Atheist however. There is an underlying theme I have noticed between the Atheist and the Theist alike, and it's called the "Uncertainty Principle. According to the Uncertainty Principle

"the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa." Werner Heisenberg (1927)

The Uncertainty Principle is basically an excuse for Scientists to never have to "prove" anything ever again. Let me explain, and I'm going to try really hard to get all my facts straight. I noticed I've used some wrong terms when discussing this with others, so hopefully I can present this correctly and coherently. If you don't wish to read the sources I provide, please take the time to see where I'm getting my sources from. I'm going to try to avoid Wikipedia unless to explain something more clearly.

The Uncertainty Principle is a "Probabilistic" concept. Because the momentum and position of a particle cannot be measured without disturbing one or the other, it is impossible to "determine" how a particle will react. Particles exhibit a Particle-Wave Duality, meaning that a particle can both act as a Particle, as well as a Wave. This theoretical contradiction is what has led to the Uncertainty Principle.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

From source "At its core, quantum mechanics can be regarded as a non-classical probability calculus resting upon a non-classical propositional logic."

When applied to logic, the equation is put like this-

"The value of the observable A lies in the range B."

This means that the "measurement of the observable A would yield (or will yield, or has yielded) a value in the set B". Therefore, according to this interpretation, nothing in the physical world can actually be "known" or "proven" because at the Quantum Level, there is no single correct Reality; there are only probabilities of what Reality may be.

You are exhibiting a very common misunderstanding of quantum physics. There most likely is a "correct Reality." We just can't measure it. Your understanding is that of someone who thinks the Schroedinger's cat thought experiment literally means the cat is in both states simultaneously. Schroedinger actually brought up the cat analogy to show how absurd the misunderstanding is. Your overall point is on the verge of being correct: that we can't know or prove anything with absolute certainty. But stating such is paradoxical. To use the A/B analogy, it may one day be possible to measure the value of A without influencing it, but as of our current understanding we cannot.

Let give a few examples. According to Classical Physics, at the Big Bang everything that has ever existed was condensed into an infinitely small "Singularity". This is what Stephen Hawkins says about the Singularity.

http://www.hawking.org.uk...

From source "At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down."

So, because of the microwave radiation background in the Universe, Scientist had determined that the Universe did in fact have a beginning. The Laws of Cause and Effect, Physics, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics proved that the Universe could not have existed forever. However, Scientist didn't like this idea of a Singularity. If the Singularity is true, then this statement could be made-

Where does Love, Good, Evil, and Intelligence come from? Were they present within the Singularity? Does this mean the Singularity had Intelligence? If the Singularity contained Intelligence, did it contain the means by which to use that Intelligence? If it contained the means by which to use Intelligence, did it use this Intelligence to Cause the universe into existence?

Love, good, evil, and intelligence are all emergent properties. They most likely didn't exist in the singularity because the material configurations from which they emerge most likely did not exist. To use an analogy, "wetness" probably didn't exist in the singularity because sufficient configurations of hydrogen and oxygen, necessary to cause the emergence of something we would call "wet," probably didn't exist.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 4:21:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 4:11:21 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:10:33 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
One major contender of this idea is one of History Channel's favorite idealist Michio Kaku. According to Kaku, Quantum Mechanics prove we have Free Will. Here is a video from Kaku that shows his nonsense excuse for his conclusion.

https://m.youtube.com...

He reasons that because of the Uncertainty Principle, the Universe is not Determined, so we have Free Will. You see, Atheist don't like Determinism either because in order for Determinism to be true, then Classical Physics is true, and if Classical Physics is true, we have the Singularity as well as a "Determiner" that must have existed to bring about the initial Cause of the Universe; more undeniable "proof" that God exists. Here is an article from Stanford explaining Determinism. I'll quote the argument against Determinism from the article.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

From article "Many physicists in the past 60 years or so have been convinced of determinism's falsity, because they were convinced that (a) whatever the Final Theory is, it will be some recognizable variant of the family of Quantum mechanical theories; and (b) all quantum mechanical theories are non-deterministic. Both (a) and (b) are highly debatable"

This means that in order to understand if Determinism is true or not, we must have a better understanding of Quantum Mechanics. The problem is, we can never have an understanding of Quantum Mechanics as long as we keep the Uncertainty Principle. The Uncertainty Principle doesn't demand a formal Truth, only a Probability of what might be True.

That is until we introduce Pilot-Wave Theory. This is where I have been misrepresenting my argument. Pilot-Wave Theory was first introduced by Louis de Broglie in the 1920's. Rather than explaining Quantum Mechanics as Probabilistic, "Pilot-Wave Theory attempted to bring Quantum Mechanics back to a solid, coherent reality. Unfortunately, the Science community at that time dismissed Broglie's theory, which led to the famous debate between Einstein and Niels Bohr. Einstein famously stated "God doesn't play dice" where Bohr countered with "Einstein, stop telling God what to do". Bohr won the debate for some reason, and since then, Science has been using the Uncertainty Principle to explain anything it wants to, without ever having to provide proof.

However, Science is reevaluating Broglie's Pilot-Wave Theory, and the outcomes have been astonishing. Here are a few articles that explain what Broglie's theory means to the Scientific community.

http://www.pbs.org...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

http://m.phys.org...

http://www.wired.com...

Real Scientist are bringing back the idea that Quantum Mechanics actually works within the Physical Universe. This would bring us back to a Deterministic model of the Universe and would cause us to reevaluate all the strange excuses Scientist give for their positions on almost everything.

From the Wired article "In principle, however, the pilot-wave theory is deterministic: The future evolves dynamically from the past, so that, if the exact state of all the particles in the universe were known at a given instant, their states at all future times could be calculated."

From the same article "'The more things we understand and can provide a physical rationale for, the more difficult it will be to defend the "quantum mechanics is magic" perspective." John Bush

You see, the Atheist and the Theist alike both believe in Magic. They believe that because of the Uncertainty Principle, anything is conceivably possible, because nothing has been Determined by Cause and Effect. Therefore, they can make up whatever nonsense they want to, and never have to provide proof for their Theory, because the Uncertainty Principle can't "prove" anything.

The Atheist is now in a paradox. They require "proof" that God exists. However, according to their "theory" of the Uncertainty Principle, Science could never "prove" anything. If they decide to accept Pilot-Wave Theory (why not, it's more believable than any other Theory) they must return to a "determined" reality, which calls for a Determiner, who is the Most High. They must also admit that things like Love, Life, and the Universe could not have come about because of Quantum "probability", because there are no "probabilities". We humans have a limited understanding of the Universe, but God, the Great Cause of it all, has Determined all things to happen exactly how they happen.

To the Atheists that I've been discussing this with, I apologize for mixing my terms up. I've been referring to Pilot Wave Theory, but have been writing Particle-Wave Duality. This was an honest mistake on my part and I apologize for the confusion. "I hope I have now presented this in a way that we can both understand and discuss. Thank you for your time and God bless you all.

Incorrect. Most atheists demand evidence, not proof. Proof only exists in mathematics. Once you get that into your head and stop trying to hijack physics to somehow discredit atheism you may actually be able to have a conversation that's not all cut and paste from other sites.

Then why call what you ask for the "burden of proof"? Does not the evidence point to God? Now whether that God is the One of Scriptures is for an entirely different discussion. But please explain to me how this world could be "Determined" without the Determiner. What was the Initial Cause that brought forth everything that would ever happen? What was there before Planck time, if all things are bound by Physics and cannot break these Laws? Quantum Mechanics cannot explain these things if they are also guided by the Laws of Physics. If Pilot-Wave Theory is true, then Science will have to renounce everything it's said for the past 80 years. In the past few years, Scientists who don't care to fantasize about endless possibilities have attempted to bring us back to reality. Is that not the conclusion one should get from reading these articles?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 4:33:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 2:04:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
I would like to discuss what I call the Atheist Paradox.

Ohmygoodness. What a mess.

Anon, if you want to discuss science, you have to accept the premise science adopts: the investigation of natural phenomena in natural terms. That's the domain, and the moment you break it, you're not talking science any more -- you're talking philosophy, and the claims you make become empirically unconfirmable.

Regarding probabilities, scientific investigation is quantified, but the quantification is necessarily imprecise because there are limits to the tools by which we observe. So we've always needed probabilities in science, but studying the very large, the very small and the very many needs statistics acutely.

There are all manner of paradoxes laid at the door of atheism: moral, epistemological, and teleological, but none of those has anything to do with science. Conversely, you can critique the pants off science if you want, but that has nothing to do with atheism.

It's true: a lot of atheists are interested in science, and a lot of scientists are nontheistic. But atheists aren't scientists; atheism doesn't require science; and science doesn't rely on atheism. So chucking rocks at scientists because you don't like atheists is like chucking rocks at psychiatrists because you don't like Jews.

I hope that helps, but fear it won't.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 4:41:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 4:21:29 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/1/2015 4:11:21 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:10:33 PM, anonymouswho wrote:

This means that in order to understand if Determinism is true or not, we must have a better understanding of Quantum Mechanics. The problem is, we can never have an understanding of Quantum Mechanics as long as we keep the Uncertainty Principle. The Uncertainty Principle doesn't demand a formal Truth, only a Probability of what might be True.

That is until we introduce Pilot-Wave Theory. This is where I have been misrepresenting my argument. Pilot-Wave Theory was first introduced by Louis de Broglie in the 1920's. Rather than explaining Quantum Mechanics as Probabilistic, "Pilot-Wave Theory attempted to bring Quantum Mechanics back to a solid, coherent reality. Unfortunately, the Science community at that time dismissed Broglie's theory, which led to the famous debate between Einstein and Niels Bohr. Einstein famously stated "God doesn't play dice" where Bohr countered with "Einstein, stop telling God what to do". Bohr won the debate for some reason, and since then, Science has been using the Uncertainty Principle to explain anything it wants to, without ever having to provide proof.

However, Science is reevaluating Broglie's Pilot-Wave Theory, and the outcomes have been astonishing. Here are a few articles that explain what Broglie's theory means to the Scientific community.

http://www.pbs.org...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

http://m.phys.org...

http://www.wired.com...

Real Scientist are bringing back the idea that Quantum Mechanics actually works within the Physical Universe. This would bring us back to a Deterministic model of the Universe and would cause us to reevaluate all the strange excuses Scientist give for their positions on almost everything.

From the Wired article "In principle, however, the pilot-wave theory is deterministic: The future evolves dynamically from the past, so that, if the exact state of all the particles in the universe were known at a given instant, their states at all future times could be calculated."

From the same article "'The more things we understand and can provide a physical rationale for, the more difficult it will be to defend the "quantum mechanics is magic" perspective." John Bush

You see, the Atheist and the Theist alike both believe in Magic. They believe that because of the Uncertainty Principle, anything is conceivably possible, because nothing has been Determined by Cause and Effect. Therefore, they can make up whatever nonsense they want to, and never have to provide proof for their Theory, because the Uncertainty Principle can't "prove" anything.

The Atheist is now in a paradox. They require "proof" that God exists. However, according to their "theory" of the Uncertainty Principle, Science could never "prove" anything. If they decide to accept Pilot-Wave Theory (why not, it's more believable than any other Theory) they must return to a "determined" reality, which calls for a Determiner, who is the Most High. They must also admit that things like Love, Life, and the Universe could not have come about because of Quantum "probability", because there are no "probabilities". We humans have a limited understanding of the Universe, but God, the Great Cause of it all, has Determined all things to happen exactly how they happen.

To the Atheists that I've been discussing this with, I apologize for mixing my terms up. I've been referring to Pilot Wave Theory, but have been writing Particle-Wave Duality. This was an honest mistake on my part and I apologize for the confusion. "I hope I have now presented this in a way that we can both understand and discuss. Thank you for your time and God bless you all.

Incorrect. Most atheists demand evidence, not proof. Proof only exists in mathematics. Once you get that into your head and stop trying to hijack physics to somehow discredit atheism you may actually be able to have a conversation that's not all cut and paste from other sites.

Then why call what you ask for the "burden of proof"? Does not the evidence point to God? Now whether that God is the One of Scriptures is for an entirely different discussion. But please explain to me how this world could be "Determined" without the Determiner. What was the Initial Cause that brought forth everything that would ever happen? What was there before Planck time, if all things are bound by Physics and cannot break these Laws? Quantum Mechanics cannot explain these things if they are also guided by the Laws of Physics. If Pilot-Wave Theory is true, then Science will have to renounce everything it's said for the past 80 years. In the past few years, Scientists who don't care to fantasize about endless possibilities have attempted to bring us back to reality. Is that not the conclusion one should get from reading these articles?

Burden of proof is a philosophical term, not a scientific one. As for evidence of some 'Determiner', none exists. If it did, no matter what quantum physics might suggest, it would be something we could verify empirically and it would be the same for every individual that tested it. This would be even more true if De Broglie were correct and events did exist separately from the observer.

". What was the Initial Cause that brought forth everything that would ever happen? What was there before Planck time, if all things are bound by Physics and cannot break these Laws?"

I don't know. Neither does anyone else that I am aware of. None of that is relevant to the existence of a supernatural being of some sort.

PS, you should really read the entire article when you post it. Let's take a look.

The droplet experiments provide an intriguing analogue or "toy model" for de Broglie"s pilot waves, but there is still no direct evidence of pilot waves at the quantum scale. "Time will tell whether the quantum-like behavior of the walking dropets is mere coincidence," Bush told me via email. Also, the theory is currently limited to describing the simplest interactions between particles and electromagnetic fields. "It is not by itself capable of representing very much physics," Oxford University physics philosopher David Wallace told Quanta earlier this year. "In my own view, this is the most severe problem for the theory, though, to be fair, it remains an active research area."

Nobody is claiming that quantum mechanics is wrong; there is too much experimental evidence that the equations do make accurate predictions about how things work at the subatomic scale. But the implications of the standard interpretations remain troubling. The pioneers of quantum mechanics came up with the most plausible theory they could, given the resources they had, and they transformed modern physics in the process. Contemplating the possibility of pilot wave theory might lead to a fresh interpretation of quantum weirdness, one that prompts physicists to rethink their longstanding assumptions about the true nature of the quantum world. Another transformation could be lurking in the wings.

You've way overstated the potential impact of what is going on.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 4:57:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 4:33:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:04:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
I would like to discuss what I call the Atheist Paradox.

Ohmygoodness. What a mess.

Anon, if you want to discuss science, you have to accept the premise science adopts: the investigation of natural phenomena in natural terms. That's the domain, and the moment you break it, you're not talking science any more -- you're talking philosophy, and the claims you make become empirically unconfirmable.

Regarding probabilities, scientific investigation is quantified, but the quantification is necessarily imprecise because there are limits to the tools by which we observe. So we've always needed probabilities in science, but studying the very large, the very small and the very many needs statistics acutely.

There are all manner of paradoxes laid at the door of atheism: moral, epistemological, and teleological, but none of those has anything to do with science. Conversely, you can critique the pants off science if you want, but that has nothing to do with atheism.

It's true: a lot of atheists are interested in science, and a lot of scientists are nontheistic. But atheists aren't scientists; atheism doesn't require science; and science doesn't rely on atheism. So chucking rocks at scientists because you don't like atheists is like chucking rocks at psychiatrists because you don't like Jews.

I hope that helps, but fear it won't.

Yes I understand what you're saying, but all of the Atheist I've talked to have confirmed their belief in Science. They have told me that the Universe could come about by Quantum Fluctuations and that there's something called Imaginary Time. However, you could absolutely argue that one doesn't have to believe in Science to deny God. They could claim that nobody knows anything, which would make them Agnostic. I'm fine with this, and that is why I came here. To tell those who "could" believe about the One True God. I'd be glad to discuss this with you and see if you have any concerns to why this isn't true; but this post was mostly for Atheist who claim to know there is no God, and require "evidence" to prove His existence. I think I have provided plenty of evidence for God and I'm just wondering what other problems anyone may have. Thank you and God bless you friend.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 5:27:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

Burden of proof is a philosophical term, not a scientific one. As for evidence of some 'Determiner', none exists. If it did, no matter what quantum physics might suggest, it would be something we could verify empirically and it would be the same for every individual that tested it. This would be even more true if De Broglie were correct and events did exist separately from the observer.

". What was the Initial Cause that brought forth everything that would ever happen? What was there before Planck time, if all things are bound by Physics and cannot break these Laws?"

I don't know. Neither does anyone else that I am aware of. None of that is relevant to the existence of a supernatural being of some sort.

PS, you should really read the entire article when you post it. Let's take a look.

The droplet experiments provide an intriguing analogue or "toy model" for de Broglie"s pilot waves, but there is still no direct evidence of pilot waves at the quantum scale. "Time will tell whether the quantum-like behavior of the walking dropets is mere coincidence," Bush told me via email. Also, the theory is currently limited to describing the simplest interactions between particles and electromagnetic fields. "It is not by itself capable of representing very much physics," Oxford University physics philosopher David Wallace told Quanta earlier this year. "In my own view, this is the most severe problem for the theory, though, to be fair, it remains an active research area."

Nobody is claiming that quantum mechanics is wrong; there is too much experimental evidence that the equations do make accurate predictions about how things work at the subatomic scale. But the implications of the standard interpretations remain troubling. The pioneers of quantum mechanics came up with the most plausible theory they could, given the resources they had, and they transformed modern physics in the process. Contemplating the possibility of pilot wave theory might lead to a fresh interpretation of quantum weirdness, one that prompts physicists to rethink their longstanding assumptions about the true nature of the quantum world. Another transformation could be lurking in the wings.

You've way overstated the potential impact of what is going on.

Thank you dhardage. I did read the entire article, and I understand this is a new reevaluation of an old theory. However, the evidence points to a future when we will rediscover that the Universe is determined. If there is a concern you have with the actual Theory I'm curious to know what it is. Thank you friend and God bless you.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 6:17:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 4:57:09 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/1/2015 4:33:08 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
It's true: a lot of atheists are interested in science, and a lot of scientists are nontheistic. But atheists aren't scientists; atheism doesn't require science; and science doesn't rely on atheism. So chucking rocks at scientists because you don't like atheists is like chucking rocks at psychiatrists because you don't like Jews.
all of the Atheist I've talked to have confirmed their belief in Science.
But so do Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims and Buddhists. The big benefit of empirical evidence is that it's trans-cultural. Any property of gravity documented by an Anglican Londoner can be confirmed by a Jainist in Mumbai.

So if you overturn one scientific proposition using scientific evidence, it simply gets replaced with another scientific propsition.

And meanwhile, there are reasons of conscience and morality to be atheist, unconnected with philosophy. So attacking science won't necessarily change the minds of atheists.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 6:43:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 3:47:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 3:44:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:09:42 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:04:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
I would like to discuss what I call the Atheist Paradox.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. You're understanding of physics is appalling.

Thank you DanneJeRussa. I realized that I made a huge mistake when I wrote to you on the other thread. Thank you for bearing with me and pointing out my mistakes. I've revised what I wrote in the second part of my post. I was mistaking Particle-Wave Duality for Pilot Wave Theory, and I see how this would cause a massive misunderstanding. Could you please look at what I wrote in the second half and point out any errors? Thank you and God bless you friend.

You have massive misunderstanding that only many paragraphs of explanations will require. It's best you took some physics courses and revisited your own posts a few years down the road when you begin to understand those concepts.

No, the problem here is that, like entanglement, pilot-wave is non-local, hence the variables of momentum and position are "hidden" in that no information can be transferred upon collapse of the wave function. Entanglement has been speculated to be used for faster than light messaging and travel, but since no information can be transferred, it fails. That's the problem with pilot-wave.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 10:14:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 6:43:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 3:47:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 3:44:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:09:42 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:04:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
I would like to discuss what I call the Atheist Paradox.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. You're understanding of physics is appalling.

Thank you DanneJeRussa. I realized that I made a huge mistake when I wrote to you on the other thread. Thank you for bearing with me and pointing out my mistakes. I've revised what I wrote in the second part of my post. I was mistaking Particle-Wave Duality for Pilot Wave Theory, and I see how this would cause a massive misunderstanding. Could you please look at what I wrote in the second half and point out any errors? Thank you and God bless you friend.

You have massive misunderstanding that only many paragraphs of explanations will require. It's best you took some physics courses and revisited your own posts a few years down the road when you begin to understand those concepts.

No, the problem here is that, like entanglement, pilot-wave is non-local, hence the variables of momentum and position are "hidden" in that no information can be transferred upon collapse of the wave function. Entanglement has been speculated to be used for faster than light messaging and travel, but since no information can be transferred, it fails. That's the problem with pilot-wave. : :

No physicist understands our true reality but that won't stop them from trying to find the answer to what is real. I speak for what is real and enjoy everything I experience that isn't real. It doesn't matter to most people what scientific theories are about because it won't give them any better quality of life. Besides, which theory is the right one?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 10:37:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 10:14:33 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 5/1/2015 6:43:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 3:47:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 3:44:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:09:42 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:04:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
I would like to discuss what I call the Atheist Paradox.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. You're understanding of physics is appalling.

Thank you DanneJeRussa. I realized that I made a huge mistake when I wrote to you on the other thread. Thank you for bearing with me and pointing out my mistakes. I've revised what I wrote in the second part of my post. I was mistaking Particle-Wave Duality for Pilot Wave Theory, and I see how this would cause a massive misunderstanding. Could you please look at what I wrote in the second half and point out any errors? Thank you and God bless you friend.

You have massive misunderstanding that only many paragraphs of explanations will require. It's best you took some physics courses and revisited your own posts a few years down the road when you begin to understand those concepts.

No, the problem here is that, like entanglement, pilot-wave is non-local, hence the variables of momentum and position are "hidden" in that no information can be transferred upon collapse of the wave function. Entanglement has been speculated to be used for faster than light messaging and travel, but since no information can be transferred, it fails. That's the problem with pilot-wave. : :

No physicist understands our true reality but that won't stop them from trying to find the answer to what is real. I speak for what is real and enjoy everything I experience that isn't real. It doesn't matter to most people what scientific theories are about because it won't give them any better quality of life. Besides, which theory is the right one?

Hey Bog, here to derail yet another thread with your insane mantra?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 12:05:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 10:37:09 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:14:33 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 5/1/2015 6:43:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 3:47:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 3:44:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:09:42 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:04:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
I would like to discuss what I call the Atheist Paradox.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. You're understanding of physics is appalling.

Thank you DanneJeRussa. I realized that I made a huge mistake when I wrote to you on the other thread. Thank you for bearing with me and pointing out my mistakes. I've revised what I wrote in the second part of my post. I was mistaking Particle-Wave Duality for Pilot Wave Theory, and I see how this would cause a massive misunderstanding. Could you please look at what I wrote in the second half and point out any errors? Thank you and God bless you friend.

You have massive misunderstanding that only many paragraphs of explanations will require. It's best you took some physics courses and revisited your own posts a few years down the road when you begin to understand those concepts.

No, the problem here is that, like entanglement, pilot-wave is non-local, hence the variables of momentum and position are "hidden" in that no information can be transferred upon collapse of the wave function. Entanglement has been speculated to be used for faster than light messaging and travel, but since no information can be transferred, it fails. That's the problem with pilot-wave. : :

No physicist understands our true reality but that won't stop them from trying to find the answer to what is real. I speak for what is real and enjoy everything I experience that isn't real. It doesn't matter to most people what scientific theories are about because it won't give them any better quality of life. Besides, which theory is the right one?

Hey Bog, here to derail yet another thread with your insane mantra? : :

I'm not at all derailing this thread. I'm just sharing information about the fact that no physicists understand how we were created, which is a paradox to not only atheists, but to anyone looking for the Truth. Scientists keep contradicting themselves all the time, just like religious people do. If you keep listening to the confused people of this world instead of listening to the Voice of our Creator, who is the only one who can teach you who we are, then you will remain confused.

Your excuse that I'm derailing every thread means that you're not going to listen to the Voice of our Creator. I already know you're not listening to His Voice as I'm a witness to every one of His people who come to me.
IceCreamforBreakfast
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 12:39:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 10:37:09 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:14:33 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 5/1/2015 6:43:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 3:47:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 3:44:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:09:42 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:04:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
I would like to discuss what I call the Atheist Paradox.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. You're understanding of physics is appalling.

Thank you DanneJeRussa. I realized that I made a huge mistake when I wrote to you on the other thread. Thank you for bearing with me and pointing out my mistakes. I've revised what I wrote in the second part of my post. I was mistaking Particle-Wave Duality for Pilot Wave Theory, and I see how this would cause a massive misunderstanding. Could you please look at what I wrote in the second half and point out any errors? Thank you and God bless you friend.

You have massive misunderstanding that only many paragraphs of explanations will require. It's best you took some physics courses and revisited your own posts a few years down the road when you begin to understand those concepts.

No, the problem here is that, like entanglement, pilot-wave is non-local, hence the variables of momentum and position are "hidden" in that no information can be transferred upon collapse of the wave function. Entanglement has been speculated to be used for faster than light messaging and travel, but since no information can be transferred, it fails. That's the problem with pilot-wave. : :

No physicist understands our true reality but that won't stop them from trying to find the answer to what is real. I speak for what is real and enjoy everything I experience that isn't real. It doesn't matter to most people what scientific theories are about because it won't give them any better quality of life. Besides, which theory is the right one?

Hey Bog, here to derail yet another thread with your insane mantra?

This was actually the most sane thing I've ever seen him post.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 12:44:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/2/2015 12:39:26 PM, IceCreamforBreakfast wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:37:09 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/2/2015 10:14:33 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 5/1/2015 6:43:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 3:47:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 3:44:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:09:42 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:04:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
I would like to discuss what I call the Atheist Paradox.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. You're understanding of physics is appalling.

Thank you DanneJeRussa. I realized that I made a huge mistake when I wrote to you on the other thread. Thank you for bearing with me and pointing out my mistakes. I've revised what I wrote in the second part of my post. I was mistaking Particle-Wave Duality for Pilot Wave Theory, and I see how this would cause a massive misunderstanding. Could you please look at what I wrote in the second half and point out any errors? Thank you and God bless you friend.

You have massive misunderstanding that only many paragraphs of explanations will require. It's best you took some physics courses and revisited your own posts a few years down the road when you begin to understand those concepts.

No, the problem here is that, like entanglement, pilot-wave is non-local, hence the variables of momentum and position are "hidden" in that no information can be transferred upon collapse of the wave function. Entanglement has been speculated to be used for faster than light messaging and travel, but since no information can be transferred, it fails. That's the problem with pilot-wave. : :

No physicist understands our true reality but that won't stop them from trying to find the answer to what is real. I speak for what is real and enjoy everything I experience that isn't real. It doesn't matter to most people what scientific theories are about because it won't give them any better quality of life. Besides, which theory is the right one?

Hey Bog, here to derail yet another thread with your insane mantra?

This was actually the most sane thing I've ever seen him post. : :

Some people would prefer if everyone received the same exact thoughts from our Creator as they get from Him. That way, they wouldn't have to fear other people's thoughts that are contrary to their own thoughts.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 12:46:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm tired of seeing so many threads derailed by inane and meaningless streams of posts between someone who is mentally retarded and psychotic and people who are fascinated by the opportunity to speak with someone who is mentally retarded and psychotic.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 8:51:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The anonymouswho school of argument:

1. Conflate atheism with science. When this false premise is pointed out to you repeatedly, ignore the objections and insist that all atheists base their non-belief on scientific grounds.

2. Latch on to some some popularized accounts of scientific thought and quote-mine them for something which you can use to generate some 'controversy'. Go back as far as you need to. Einstein's early opposition to quantum mechanics is a good start.

3. Applying your almost non-existent understanding of science and the scientific method, create a "paradox' out of nothing. It doesn't have to make sense as long as the impression is produced that some problem exists.

4. Post this in the Religion forum. Avoid the Science forum at all cost. When your 'arguments' are deconstructed and refuted abandon the original thread and simply move them to another thread.

5. Rinse and repeat.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 1:21:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 2:04:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
The Atheist do not want the Singularity to be true. If it is True, then that is undeniable proof that there is God. So what is the Scientist's explicit excuse to deny the Singularity?

Do not confuse what someone does or does not believe with their motives and/or desires. Doing so only demonstrates your inability to understand how logic and reason work.

The Atheist is now in a paradox. They require "proof" that God exists. However, according to their "theory" of the Uncertainty Principle, Science could never "prove" anything.

You don't understand the terms. Atheists do not require proof, we require evidence. If the evidence is sufficient, then we'll adjust our beliefs accordingly. And once the evidence reaches that point, then it is considered proof (to the person it convinces). With regard to science, you're using the word "prove" to mean "absolute certainty" which is nothing more than a red herring. No one is claiming to be absolutely certain about anything nor do we require it to form a belief.

You really need to take some time to understand atheism before creating a whole thread blasting it. Atheism is very simple: "You're claiming a God exists, I see no reason to accept your claim". That's it. And you can blast what atheists have to say all day, that doesn't mean you are attacking atheism. If you want to attack atheism there is only one way to do that, and it necessarily begins with justifying your claim that a God exists.
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 2:14:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 6:43:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 3:47:40 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 3:44:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:09:42 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/1/2015 2:04:51 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
I would like to discuss what I call the Atheist Paradox.


You have massive misunderstanding that only many paragraphs of explanations will require. It's best you took some physics courses and revisited your own posts a few years down the road when you begin to understand those concepts.

No, the problem here is that, like entanglement, pilot-wave is non-local, hence the variables of momentum and position are "hidden" in that no information can be transferred upon collapse of the wave function. Entanglement has been speculated to be used for faster than light messaging and travel, but since no information can be transferred, it fails. That's the problem with pilot-wave.

Sorry for the delay, I spend the weekends with my family. I know what you're saying, however this would involve hypothetical tachyons, and there is absolutely no evidence that they exist. If we were to send information faster-than-light, the recipient would receive the message before it was physically sent. This would require a hypothetical device that Einstein called a Tachyonic antitelephone and many other variables and factors. This would break the Law of Causality. Does it not feel more natural to have a non-local explanation than to just say "let's throw away all physics"? Copenhagen's interpretation should not be viewed as absolute authority on the matter. Pilot-Wave Theory was presented in Einstein's time, and nobody seemed to put any more thought into it. It seems like Scientist have just said "nobody can know for sure, so let's stick with probability and we can say whatever we want". That's why I feel like the Uncertainty Principle is the end-all excuse to claim whatever they want. We say "that's impossible" and Science comes back and says "well not at the Quantum Level". They use a misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics to justify any position they wish to hold. In the physical world, that we can actually observe, Science no longer requires sound evidence. If something doesn't match their specific Philosophy, they just claim the Uncertainty Principle could explain it. I've seen this excuse for everything from the Orgin of the Universe to Free Will. Do you see what my concern is? The Theist can say "God did it, He can contradict because He's not bound by Logic" for everything they don't understand. The Atheist can say "Not at the Quantum Level because Quantum Mechanics is not bound by Physics" for everything they don't understand. That is why I said the Atheist's god is Uncertainty. It's like a Fundamental Christian trying to prove the trinity. How is it that so many people are able to accept a contradiction so easily? Don't get me wrong, I know the Scriptures appear to have contradictions, but I understand that a lot of history is gone forever, so I don't concern myself with trying to find evidence of these things. I'm only alive for a very short time, so I like to know that the Truth is out there and it is obtainable; whether I was put here in the Information Age or in the Bronze Age, I believe the Truth has always existed, but God gives it to whoever He pleases for the Purpose He has for mankind. In my humble opinion, that is just as reasonable as anything else that nobody has evidence for.

Just look at the world and how deluded it is. The Fundamental Christians teach that God is going to torture most of humanity for eternity, when nobody asked to be born in the first place. That gives them some purpose in life because now they have a goal to accomplish. However, I don't see how they (nor myself at one point) are able to sleep one wink believing that every second thousands of people are dying and burning in hell. Any sane person must agree that this is a delusion. It's not stupidity or ignorance. It's a delusion. And they argue until their death that this is true.

Does what I'm saying make any sense to you? I don't care if you believe or not; who am I to say one is wrong over the other. I'm mostly here to get tough questions from the most skeptical people I can find, and you guys are perfect. Dee-em especially has helped me understand many things. I understand that no amount of debating can sway either of us. It's just a lot of fun. Obviously that's why you are all here. Why else debate people when you hold no position? You're just enjoying your lot and having a good time while we go through this meaningless endeavor of life. It's the best thing any of us can do. I belive we will all live forever, you believe we will die and never exist again. What difference does it make? The average Christian, Muslim, or whatever can't wait until the day that they get to say "see I told you, now go burn in hell forever for not being smart enough to know!". But I can't wait until the day that I see you and can say "Welcome my Brother' come enjoy what God has done for us". If you're right, then I'm dead. Who cares? If I'm right, we have a lot to look forward to. Either way, life is meaningless. That's why we have no reason to worry about anything. We can never change the world. Whether the Uncertainty Principle is true or not, common sense and logic tell us that the world is continuing in whatever direction it's going. Cause and Effect is physical, and we are bound by it.

Imagine this scenerio. While your stopped at a red light, a piece of dust falls and lands in your eye. BECAUSE you wipe your eye, and BECAUSE you had your attention taken from the road, you notice a sign for free puppies. You remember your old dog Rusty and how much you loved him (BECAUSE you had him when you were a child, when you absolutely had no free will because you only knew what your parents and community said was true, and your small mind couldn't comprehend anything philosophical). BECAUSE of this memory, you pull off the path you were going and stop at the store with the puppies. While there, one of your old friends from High School comes out. BECAUSE you had fond memories with this person, the two of you chat about life and exchange numbers. You decide against the puppy BECAUSE you remember the last dog you had pooped all over the house. Your old friend calls you up the next day and asks if you'd like to meet up for drinks. BECAUSE you enjoyed spending time with this person, you agree and head to a bar. You have a little too much to drink BECAUSE the only plan you had for the day was to mow the lawn, so you decide to hold it off until next week. At about 8:00 your wife calls and says one of the kids is sick and she's taking them to the hospital. BECAUSE you begin to worry, you insist on leaving to see your child. You get in your car and start to drive. Another driver is heading your way and BECAUSE he looks down to change the radio station, he accidently swerves and hits you. The police show up and test you for alcohol. BECAUSE you fail, you have to spend the night in jail, pay for the damage, and lose your license. All BECAUSE a piece of dust landed in your eye. Do you understand what I'm saying? That doesnt include all the other micro Cause and Effects that happened between all that.There is no free will and Cause and Effect continues whether we notice it or not. And I believe something must have been the Initial Cause

I'm running out of room, but I hope I got my point across. I'm really enjoying this and I thank all of you for continuing to discuss this with me. God bless you DanneJeRusse and everyone.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 4:21:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 2:14:56 AM, anonymouswho

Your understanding of atheism is appallingly inadequate.
Do try to educate yourself rather than embarrass yourself.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 5:05:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 4:21:14 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/4/2015 2:14:56 AM, anonymouswho

Your understanding of atheism is appallingly inadequate.
Do try to educate yourself rather than embarrass yourself.

Thank you bulworth, I understand this isn't about Science but that was a reply to DanneJeRusse because we are talking about Science. Are you saying I should educate myself about Atheism? Would it be fair to ask you to educate yourself on the Scriptures? Who would be an authority of Atheism that I could trust? I already tried to discuss with you that the Scriptures do not say anything about an eternal hell, and you didn't provide one verse that contradicted what I was saying. You just said "Naw that's what your god says". I understand Atheistim. You simply say there is no God and then we go through this whole charade of trying to convince you. What else do I need to know?
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 5:13:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 5:05:29 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/4/2015 4:21:14 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/4/2015 2:14:56 AM, anonymouswho

Your understanding of atheism is appallingly inadequate.
Do try to educate yourself rather than embarrass yourself.

Thank you bulworth, I understand this isn't about Science but that was a reply to DanneJeRusse because we are talking about Science. Are you saying I should educate myself about Atheism? Would it be fair to ask you to educate yourself on the Scriptures? Who would be an authority of Atheism that I could trust? I already tried to discuss with you that the Scriptures do not say anything about an eternal hell, and you didn't provide one verse that contradicted what I was saying. You just said "Naw that's what your god says". I understand Atheistim. You simply say there is no God and then we go through this whole charade of trying to convince you. What else do I need to know?

And yet again, your title for this thread is The Atheist Paradox, science has nothing to say about atheism.
You just embarrass yourself when you demonstrate your ignorance concerning the subject.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 5:39:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 5:13:37 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:05:29 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/4/2015 4:21:14 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/4/2015 2:14:56 AM, anonymouswho

Your understanding of atheism is appallingly inadequate.
Do try to educate yourself rather than embarrass yourself.

Thank you bulworth, I understand this isn't about Science but that was a reply to DanneJeRusse because we are talking about Science. Are you saying I should educate myself about Atheism? Would it be fair to ask you to educate yourself on the Scriptures? Who would be an authority of Atheism that I could trust? I already tried to discuss with you that the Scriptures do not say anything about an eternal hell, and you didn't provide one verse that contradicted what I was saying. You just said "Naw that's what your god says". I understand Atheistim. You simply say there is no God and then we go through this whole charade of trying to convince you. What else do I need to know?

And yet again, your title for this thread is The Atheist Paradox, science has nothing to say about atheism.
You just embarrass yourself when you demonstrate your ignorance concerning the subject.

Yes but how can one claim to be an Atheist if they simply don't know? I've heard there's Agnostic Atheist and Strong Atheist. Why does Atheism have denominations? You ask for evidence, but no amount of evidence would ever convince you. At the end of the day, you can just say "Nope" and go on with your life. The Atheist is in a paradox if they claim to "know" there is no God. If they believe the Uncertainty Principle, they must admit nobody can know. If they believe the Pilot Wave Theory, then there is no reason to deny God. If they believe in nothing, then they have no knowledge, which is the very definition of Agnostic. What reason does an Atheist have to insist on no God? Why not just keep quiet and admit ignorance?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 5:50:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 5:05:29 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
Are you saying I should educate myself about Atheism?

AWho, I'm sorry to interject on a conversation with another member, but these questions seem to betray some ignorance and frustration. I'd like to offer some ideas.

Atheism isn't a philosophy nor a doctrinal position; it's a sociological category created principally because of theological claims.

If there were no theology but only philosophy, there'd be no grouping called atheists. Instead there'd be philosophical groupings that would categorise the same people idifferently -- e.g. humanists, utilitarians, hedonists, stoics, nihilists and so on.

The reason theology makes atheism look like a coherent grouping is the fact that theology claims philosophical and moral authority, and presumes this authority to be normative.

A simple way to understand atheism is that atheists reject theological authority -- whether for philosophically, moral, or sociological reasons.

What complicates this further is that theology itself changes over time. We can imagine theology as being a conversation between faith, science, philosophy and politics. We know that theology shifts position in response to scientific, philosophical and political insights . Atheism is a conversation with theology, and the conversation changes as theology shifts its position. This is not necessarily because atheism is trying to hold a fixed centre, but because it objects to the authorities claimed, rephrased and reaffirmed by theology in the first place.

An education in atheism then is an education in the many disparate conversations atheists have with theology at a particular time and place. It's an education in the interactions of science, philosophy and politics with the shifting sands of theology. There are no authorities; only influences and ideas. There's no doctrine to discuss as there is with theology; there's only the discussions themselves.

Would it be fair to ask you to educate yourself on the Scriptures?
It depends on the conversation, AWho. You need to understand and accept that before they were canons and theological evidences, scriptures were first and foremost historical and cultural artefacts. They were written by real people in a real time and place, based on real motives and objectives, for a real audience. The question of who were those people, what were their influences, motives and objectives, and who where their audience are historical questions, not principally theological ones. Any theological authority derived from scripture can only be secondary to their historical attestations.

Many atheists are interested in the historical questions, but not all are. Theology is not in itself a study of history; it's a psychosocial interpretation, and therefore can ignore whatever history it likes, draw from whatever scriptural or nonscriptural sources it wishes, synthesise whatever disparate disciplines it likes. An atheist can potientially know a lot about scriptural history, yet be very disinterested in theology. Since theology seeks to claim authority over so many other disciplines, there is no right to insist that an atheist complete a Doctorate in Divinity before contributing to conversation.

On the other hand, atheists (or anyone) can insist that theologists understand history, science, philosophy and politics adequately before making claims in those domains.

The reason for this asymmetry is simply this: theology claims authority. Therefore it must acquit its claims transparently and accountably before using the claim.

This requires a much higher standard of evidence with people who don't accept the claims than with people who do. However, many atheists will tell you that the standards are fixed and reasonable, and that many disciplines outside theology meet them. They're inviting you to meet the standard, or justify (nontheologically) why not.

I hope this may help.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 6:19:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 5:39:22 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:13:37 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:05:29 AM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 5/4/2015 4:21:14 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/4/2015 2:14:56 AM, anonymouswho

Your understanding of atheism is appallingly inadequate.
Do try to educate yourself rather than embarrass yourself.

Thank you bulworth, I understand this isn't about Science but that was a reply to DanneJeRusse because we are talking about Science. Are you saying I should educate myself about Atheism? Would it be fair to ask you to educate yourself on the Scriptures? Who would be an authority of Atheism that I could trust? I already tried to discuss with you that the Scriptures do not say anything about an eternal hell, and you didn't provide one verse that contradicted what I was saying. You just said "Naw that's what your god says". I understand Atheistim. You simply say there is no God and then we go through this whole charade of trying to convince you. What else do I need to know?

And yet again, your title for this thread is The Atheist Paradox, science has nothing to say about atheism.
You just embarrass yourself when you demonstrate your ignorance concerning the subject.

Yes but how can one claim to be an Atheist if they simply don't know?
Don't know what?
I've heard there's Agnostic Atheist and Strong Atheist. Why does Atheism have denominations?
Atheism is a disbelief in the man made claim that gods exist, it's not a religion.
You ask for evidence, but no amount of evidence would ever convince you. At the end of the day, you can just say "Nope" and go on with your life.
I once sought evidence and found NOTHING. If you have evidence then you will be hailed as the saviour of christianity.
Bring it and let's see.
The Atheist is in a paradox if they claim to "know" there is no God.
I claim to know that the men who claim the existence of gods cannot provide any evidence in support of their claim.
MEN CLAIM THE EXISTENCE OF GOD'S. No other claim is forthcoming.
If they believe the Uncertainty Principle, they must admit nobody can know. If they believe the Pilot Wave Theory, then there is no reason to deny God. If they believe in nothing, then they have no knowledge, which is the very definition of Agnostic. What reason does an Atheist have to insist on no God? Why not just keep quiet and admit ignorance?
All we need do is examine the absolute lack of evidence supplied by those who claim that gods exist.
We have no need of belief in anything.
The claimants need to produce the evidence that supports their claims.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin