Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If God invented light

Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 11:20:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 11:14:52 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God invented light, why did he not decide if it was particulate or a wave?

Because its "dual nature" best served his will.
ReformedPresbyterian72598
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 11:24:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 11:14:52 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God invented light, why did he not decide if it was particulate or a wave?

Why don't we just get to the ontological side of things if you're going to ask these questions?
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 11:26:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If God created us in his image, and the first humans were black, is God black?

If God created the Earth, and thus the supercontinent Pangea, how come he chose West Asia to send his son to? The Earth started off as only one landmass, so why that tiny point?
ReformedPresbyterian72598
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 11:33:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 11:26:26 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God created us in his image, and the first humans were black, is God black?

Do you think this a reasonable question? Really? That's not asking who God is, or what He is, or what He holds. You aren't going to know. Why would we care? Does it matter that much?

If God created the Earth, and thus the supercontinent Pangea, how come he chose West Asia to send his son to? The Earth started off as only one landmass, so why that tiny point?

There is an order to everything God has created and planned. There is no reason why He wouldn't do so, other than it was for His good pleasure and glory. Ask Him if you want.
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 11:36:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 11:33:23 AM, ReformedPresbyterian72598 wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:26:26 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God created us in his image, and the first humans were black, is God black?

Do you think this a reasonable question? Really? That's not asking who God is, or what He is, or what He holds. You aren't going to know. Why would we care? Does it matter that much?

If God created the Earth, and thus the supercontinent Pangea, how come he chose West Asia to send his son to? The Earth started off as only one landmass, so why that tiny point?

There is an order to everything God has created and planned. There is no reason why He wouldn't do so, other than it was for His good pleasure and glory. Ask Him if you want.

I did. I also prayed to him to cure all cancer on Earth, he didn't. Even though Jesus said he and his father would answer any prayer sent to them. I want a full reimbursement.
ReformedPresbyterian72598
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 11:57:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 11:36:59 AM, smelisox wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:33:23 AM, ReformedPresbyterian72598 wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:26:26 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God created us in his image, and the first humans were black, is God black?

Do you think this a reasonable question? Really? That's not asking who God is, or what He is, or what He holds. You aren't going to know. Why would we care? Does it matter that much?

If God created the Earth, and thus the supercontinent Pangea, how come he chose West Asia to send his son to? The Earth started off as only one landmass, so why that tiny point?

There is an order to everything God has created and planned. There is no reason why He wouldn't do so, other than it was for His good pleasure and glory. Ask Him if you want.

I did. I also prayed to him to cure all cancer on Earth, he didn't. Even though Jesus said he and his father would answer any prayer sent to them. I want a full reimbursement.

Lol, you're hilarious. Let me re-post that with some adjustments:
"There is an order to everything God has created and planned. There is no reason why He wouldn't do so, and it is for, and of, His own good purpose, pleasure, and glory."
anonymouswho
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 12:01:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 11:14:52 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God invented light, why did he not decide if it was particulate or a wave?

Have you ever heard of Pilot-Wave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics? Here is an excellent course from Cambridge about it:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk...

Pilot-Waves explain all of the "weirdness" at the Quantum Level. Each particle is guided by a pilot-wave that Determines the particles position and velocity. Louis de broglie had already figured the math for all of this in the 1920's, but Niels Bohr chose to defend the Uncertainty Principle as an excuse for the free will nonsense. Here's an interview with Niels Bohr where he explains the philosophy behind his interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and free will:

https://www.aip.org...

Here are some articles about the progress Pilot-Wave interpretation has received in the past few years:

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

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

http://newsoffice.mit.edu...

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

This constant travel of particles began when God said "Let there be light", which thus brought about Cause and Effect to take its course to bring about His Perfect Plan. All things are Determined by Him, and He is the Great Cause of all. In the end, He will gather all things back to Him, and all people will join His Son Yeshua the Messiah as God's Children. Thank you my friend and God bless you.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 1:23:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 12:01:26 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:14:52 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God invented light, why did he not decide if it was particulate or a wave?

Have you ever heard of Pilot-Wave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

Yes, it has been dismissed by scientists as useless.

Here is an excellent course from Cambridge about it:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk...

Pilot-Waves explain all of the "weirdness" at the Quantum Level. Each particle is guided by a pilot-wave that Determines the particles position and velocity. Louis de broglie had already figured the math for all of this in the 1920's, but Niels Bohr chose to defend the Uncertainty Principle as an excuse for the free will nonsense.

That is not true, please stop lying.

Here's an interview with Niels Bohr where he explains the philosophy behind his interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and free will:

https://www.aip.org...

Here are some articles about the progress Pilot-Wave interpretation has received in the past few years:

Scientists are not using the theory at all, it has been dismissed.

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

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

http://newsoffice.mit.edu...

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

This constant travel of particles began when God said "Let there be light", which thus brought about Cause and Effect to take its course to bring about His Perfect Plan. All things are Determined by Him, and He is the Great Cause of all. In the end, He will gather all things back to Him, and all people will join His Son Yeshua the Messiah as God's Children. Thank you my friend and God bless you.
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
7/6/2015 2:10:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 1:23:33 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 7/6/2015 12:01:26 PM, anonymouswho wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:14:52 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God invented light, why did he not decide if it was particulate or a wave?

Have you ever heard of Pilot-Wave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

Yes, it has been dismissed by scientists as useless.

Here is an excellent course from Cambridge about it:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk...

Pilot-Waves explain all of the "weirdness" at the Quantum Level. Each particle is guided by a pilot-wave that Determines the particles position and velocity. Louis de broglie had already figured the math for all of this in the 1920's, but Niels Bohr chose to defend the Uncertainty Principle as an excuse for the free will nonsense.

That is not true, please stop lying.

Here's an interview with Niels Bohr where he explains the philosophy behind his interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and free will:

https://www.aip.org...

Here are some articles about the progress Pilot-Wave interpretation has received in the past few years:

Scientists are not using the theory at all, it has been dismissed.

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

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

http://newsoffice.mit.edu...

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

This constant travel of particles began when God said "Let there be light", which thus brought about Cause and Effect to take its course to bring about His Perfect Plan. All things are Determined by Him, and He is the Great Cause of all. In the end, He will gather all things back to Him, and all people will join His Son Yeshua the Messiah as God's Children. Thank you my friend and God bless you.

Could you please explain why it is incorrect? Locality? Locality does not prove it wrong. Pilot-Wave is non-local because it began at the beginning of time, and it was this first Cause that Determined how the subsequent particles and waves would behave. This is from the course from Cambridge:

"Non-locality- Definition: a direct influence of one object on another, distant object, contrary to our expectation that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings.

What Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) experiment implies:

"Result of measurement on one side immediately predicts result on other (for parallel analyzers).

"If do not believe one side can have causal influence on the other, then require that results on both sides are determined in advance.

But this has implications for non-parallel settings which conflict with quantum mechanics (Bell). Thus Bell"s analysis showed that any account of quantum phenomena needs to be nonlocal, not just any "hidden variables" account i.e. nonlocality is implied by the predictions of standard quantum theory itself. Thus, if nature is governed by these predictions (which it is, according to real experiments) then nature is nonlocal.

"Nonlocality of pilot-wave theory solely from nonlocality built in to structure of standard QM, as provided by wavefunction on configuration space, an abstraction which combines or binds distant particles into a single irreducible reality.

"Velocity from guiding equation of any particle of a many-particle system will typically depend upon the positions of the other, possibly distant, particles whenever wavefunction of the system is entangled, i.e., not a product of single-particle wavefunctions.

"All usual results (such as EPR) follow from pilot-wave mathematical analysis using the concept of the "conditional wavefunction"

"Only problem therefore acceptance of nonlocality without necessarily knowing "mechanism". Concept perfectly rational since leads to neither internal logical contradiction nor disagreement with any facts. Can still isolate systems sufficiently to study them, and nonlocal effects not significant at the large-scale level.

Doesn"t violate special relativity: no controllable observable consequences (if in quantum equilibrium!- Valentini). In pilot- wave field theory on flat spacetime, can say subquantum nonlocality acts instantaneously across true 3-space, defining an absolute simultaneity and a true time t. In equilibrium, nonlocality and preferred rest frame invisible. Absolute uniform motion of physical reference frame undetectable as moving experimenter may stay at rest by using Lorentz-transformed variables. "Lorentz invariance" property of equilibrium dynamics not of space and time . hmm!

Local notion of order by means of a Cartesian grid (extended where necessary to curvilinear) is inadequate in the quantum domain, so Bohm suggests new notion of order, somewhat analagous to using a hologram to make an image, to replace the old, which is analagous to using a lens.

"Each region of the hologram makes possible an image of the whole object. The hologram does not look like the object, but give rise to an image only when suitably illuminated. The whole object is "enfolded" in each part of the hologram rather than being in point-to-point correspondence. Order in the hologram = implicate. Order in the object and image= explicate.

"Order of the whole universe is enfolded into each region. Suggestion that implicate order will have the kind of general necessity that is suitable for expressing the basic laws of physics, while the explicate order (what you see) is important only as a particular case.

"Implicit in Green"s function!"

(I can't post Green's function because of character limitation)

These are the slides from the lecture. So, why is locality important again? Thanks DanneJeRusse.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 2:29:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 11:14:52 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God invented light, why did he not decide if it was particulate or a wave?

First off, If there is a Creator, I would prefer to refer to it as "It" because I think it would be non-personal and Deist--and not human-like and Theist.

That said, It already knows full-well what the nature of light is.

It is us who are still bantering about it.

BTW: it is a form of electromagnetic radiation, a wave that is comprised by particles called "photons."
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 2:39:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 11:26:26 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God created us in his image, and the first humans were black, is God black?

Why does everyone assume that "made in His image" must mean exactly the same, that is a useless assumption seeing how God is a God of variety and contrast, this is seen throughout His creation. Us as Humans were designed with God himself in mind, some likeness and some similarities but obviously not exact, that is poor thinking and illogical.
I'll give you some examples although I'm sure you will find some reason to begin a circular argument, probably by repeating the verse over and over to apply it to what you want but we will see....
Examples: God is not human, He is Spirit, meaning God does not have flesh or bones. (we do)

God doesn't have a gender (sexual organs) or a race, in other words God the Father is not black, Caucasian, Indian, Australian ect ect... Those things are the result of genes and geographic location and God is outside all of that, (we are not).

God cannot be tempted by evil nor does He tempt any man with evil, (we can be, and do).

God is aware of everything at once and can accomplish impossible feats that we could never do.

God is not restricted to physical laws, we are and blah blah blah I could go on and on but hopefully you get the point, you can't attach that passage to everything and claim God said its His own image, that is ignorant.
It's obvious looking at humans as opposed to creatures what some of the similarities would be, and I'd be happy to point out the obvious.


If God created the Earth, and thus the supercontinent Pangea, how come he chose West Asia to send his son to? The Earth started off as only one landmass, so why that tiny point?

Why not? what's wrong with that location, I think it's great, and when it all began beautiful like you've probably never seen. That area has some fine features my friend.

And BTW I'll be ignoring any wackos that try to interrupt the discussion, unless of course I know you are not a troll or a troll keeper.
lucky59
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 2:39:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 11:14:52 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God invented light, why did he not decide if it was particulate or a wave? : :

If God invented light, then you need him to explain it to you. Scientists don't know how he did it.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 2:59:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 11:14:52 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God invented light, why did he not decide if it was particulate or a wave?

You either enjoy asking a lot of cynical questions or you like dragging people down rabbit holes, which do you prefer?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 3:42:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 2:39:05 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Examples: God is not human, He is Spirit, meaning God does not have flesh or bones. (we do)

That would mean God is non-existent, because the term Spirit means non-existent.

God doesn't have a gender (sexual organs)

Then, how did Mary get pregnant? Magic?

or a race, in other words God the Father is not black, Caucasian, Indian, Australian ect ect... Those things are the result of genes and geographic location and God is outside all of that, (we are not).

God cannot be tempted by evil nor does He tempt any man with evil, (we can be, and do).

God is aware of everything at once and can accomplish impossible feats that we could never do.

God is not restricted to physical laws, we are and blah blah blah I could go on and on but hopefully you get the point

Yes, you are just making stuff up as you go along like you always do.

, you can't attach that passage to everything and claim God said its His own image, that is ignorant.
It's obvious looking at humans as opposed to creatures what some of the similarities would be, and I'd be happy to point out the obvious.






If God created the Earth, and thus the supercontinent Pangea, how come he chose West Asia to send his son to? The Earth started off as only one landmass, so why that tiny point?

Why not? what's wrong with that location, I think it's great, and when it all began beautiful like you've probably never seen. That area has some fine features my friend.

And BTW I'll be ignoring any wackos that try to interrupt the discussion, unless of course I know you are not a troll or a troll keeper.
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
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 5:06:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 11:14:52 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God invented light, why did he not decide if it was particulate or a wave?

Fallacy of false dichotomy. What ever God made light, is what light is.

It is another matter that we classify it as wave or particle depending.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 5:12:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 11:26:26 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God created us in his image, and the first humans were black, is God black?

It says he made man and women in his image. Clearly this "image" of God is not a physical one, especially since god is neither male nor female and non-physical.


If God created the Earth, and thus the supercontinent Pangea, how come he chose West Asia to send his son to? The Earth started off as only one landmass, so why that tiny point?

Because of God's promise to Abraham, the Jewish people, and the city of Jerusalem.

This might be a hard concept for you but events are usually confined to an area. From there they effect the world.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 5:15:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 12:00:37 PM, smelisox wrote:
So Cancer brings pleasure and glory to God? He's a wanker.

Who says Cancer is from God?

If you are going to ask your questions addressing a judo-christian doctrine, then you should keep it to such a domain.

For instance this is a fallen world. Meaning disease and corruption are running rampant right now.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 5:45:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 5:12:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:26:26 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God created us in his image, and the first humans were black, is God black?

It says he made man and women in his image. Clearly this "image" of God is not a physical one, especially since god is neither male nor female and non-physical.

If you mean a spiritual being will not have physical genitals, then I agree that is incongruent with the concept of spiritual, but if you mean god cannot self identify as male or female then you have lost me. I'll let you clarify before I jump to conclusions.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 5:56:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 5:45:14 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/6/2015 5:12:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:26:26 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God created us in his image, and the first humans were black, is God black?

It says he made man and women in his image. Clearly this "image" of God is not a physical one, especially since god is neither male nor female and non-physical.


If you mean a spiritual being will not have physical genitals, then I agree that is incongruent with the concept of spiritual, but if you mean god cannot self identify as male or female then you have lost me. I'll let you clarify before I jump to conclusions.

Where does God who created man and woman, self identify as male?

My reply is to address the OP, that the myriad of human phenotypes does not allude to a physical property of God. Hence image and likeness must be of a different kind of attributes.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 7:05:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 11:36:59 AM, smelisox wrote:

If God invented light, why did he not decide if it was particulate or a wave?

He did.

If God created us in his image, and the first humans were black, is God black?

The first Humans were not black.

If God created the Earth, and thus the supercontinent Pangea, how come he chose West Asia to send his son to? The Earth started off as only one landmass, so why that tiny point?

Cause if He had sent His Son to every point on Earth His Son would have been too thin for us to see Him.

I also prayed to him to cure all cancer on Earth, he didn't.

Why would He? Could you pay Him for all that work?

Even though Jesus said he and his father would answer any prayer sent to them.

He didn't say that. You must be confusing Jesus with that voice in your head.

I want a full reimbursement.

Of what? Your copious stupidity never left your pockets.
ReformedPresbyterian72598
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 10:54:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 12:00:37 PM, smelisox wrote:
So Cancer brings pleasure and glory to God? He's a wanker.

It works, does it not?
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 12:02:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 11:20:53 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:14:52 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God invented light, why did he not decide if it was particulate or a wave?

Because its "dual nature" best served his will.

Because <insert any natural phenomenon here> best served his will.

You do realize the probem with such statements, don't you?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 12:35:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 12:02:12 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:20:53 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:14:52 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God invented light, why did he not decide if it was particulate or a wave?

Because its "dual nature" best served his will.

Because <insert any natural phenomenon here> best served his will.

You do realize the probem with such statements, don't you?

Yes, it doesn't let atheists place God into a box that they can easily deny.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 12:43:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 12:35:25 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/7/2015 12:02:12 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:20:53 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:14:52 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God invented light, why did he not decide if it was particulate or a wave?

Because its "dual nature" best served his will.

Because <insert any natural phenomenon here> best served his will.

You do realize the problem with such statements, don't you?

Yes, it doesn't let atheists place God into a box that they can easily deny.

No, that's not it sadly. Keep thinking, it will come to you.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 12:45:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 12:42:20 AM, smelisox wrote:
The first Humans were not black.

They were.

They were covered in hair, so it was hard to tell. Lol.
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 1:09:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 12:43:00 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/7/2015 12:35:25 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/7/2015 12:02:12 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:20:53 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/6/2015 11:14:52 AM, smelisox wrote:
If God invented light, why did he not decide if it was particulate or a wave?

Because its "dual nature" best served his will.

Because <insert any natural phenomenon here> best served his will.

You do realize the problem with such statements, don't you?

Yes, it doesn't let atheists place God into a box that they can easily deny.

No, that's not it sadly. Keep thinking, it will come to you.

I don't serve his will, why was I created?