# The Quantum God

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Reiku, Nov 18, 2007.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Einstein Once Said,
'All conflicts between science and religion have all sprung from deadly errors.'

The difficulty for theologians is that physics does not require a divinity. However, i am a Christian, so i tend to fight against the dogmatic and rather narrow view of modern science. There are a few scientists however that strongly believe that a God exists. Einstein was one of them. He often referred to God as ''the Old One'' - this term would often leave me in curiosity. It tends to indicate God has age about him. Perhaps the description of God has undergone some drastic changes over the years - because i would have thought God has no age... After all, He/She is never changing; now that must also indicate never ageing.

So, let us break free of this - can we all agree on what God is like? If we take the biblical interpretations of God, we can make a consistent picture of his/hers nature - (now is a good time to mention that Einstein was raised as Jew - but he lost the Jewish faith at the age of 12, and picked up the faith of Spinoza's God - but the point i am trying to make, is that, whatever God is, there should be correlations we can all come to agree on). For me, three words can sum God up rather well. He/She is omnipotent. God is also omniscient. He/She is also omnipresent. This sums God up for me... but, before we continue, let us agree on one more aspect. God knows everything. There should not be an atom in the universe He/She is not aware of... hence something similar found in the Bible, ''God knows the number of every strand of hair on your head.''

However, having a scientific mind, i must admit, we must change our views of what God could be - we often take the bible far too seriously. For instance, to say God knows everything, is where the first inconsistency arises, when interpreting God into the theory of quantum physics.

According to the uncertainty principle, to know everything there is about matter, like the location or path of any particle simultaneously is unknowable. To know such knowledge would be disastrous for our universe; it would cause extreme violence. The uncertainty principle states that some of the particles in our universe are potentially volatile. This means that certain particles have explosive tendencies. Even an amount of 10^15 particles would be sufficient in ultimately annihilating our universe in one swift flash of energy, sending our universe back whence it came.
So, the question is, can an all-knowing God be correct? To know the location and path of 10^15 particles at any given time would destroy our universe - God would need to be ignorant of certain atomic behavior.

The second paradox arises when one takes into consideration when measuring an energy of a system. To measure the energy of any system, you need to be separate of it. In Relativity, it indicates that there is no outside to our universe. All that counts, exists inside of it. In just this case, how can anyone measure the energy of the universe, when one needs to be outside to measure it? To do so, God would need to be able to measure Himself/Herself simultaneously; now this might not be a problem if He/She has omnipresence. Of course, there is always the argument that God made it all, thus He/She should know what and how much ingredients were used, just like your mums Sunday apple pie.

The third paradox arises in the wave function. The only time anything real can come out of the wave function is when intelligence comes into the picture. If God is all-knowing and all-seeing, then surely He/She would collapse the wave function for us? Indeed if God did, there would be nothing for us to collapse.

'I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion
are natural opposites. In fact, i believe there is a very close relationship
between the two. Further, i think that science without religion is lame
and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important
and should work hand-in-hand.'
Albert Einstein

Most physicists should agree that if God is real, then God is what we call quantum physics. Thus all quantum laws would be the nature of God. It is His/Hers way of having anything tangible in the universe. Some scientists believe God is some kind of holographic entity existing as some kind of supercomputer recording all events in its data banks. If we where to believe physicists Barrow and Tipler, all matter requires the consciousness of God to exist.
Nowadays, most scientists however use God as a metaphor, just to explain the unexplainable - well, nothing much there has changed after 2500 years. We where using God to explain the mystical back then, and we are still doing this today. However, as i have said, there are some scientists who entertain the God theory - like physicists Frank Tipler, Fred Hoyle (in some interpretations), Shiuji Inomata and Fred Alan Wolf. Fred Alan Wolf has an interesting description of what he calls God. He believes God is us - as he puts it, ''a spill from the giant ocean of thought,'' and goes on, ''that is God, temporarily trapped by the hologram.''

We often wonder how reality became how it is. From the simple seed, to the human eye, everything has the appearance of intelligent design. It was unfortunately, only last year or so, the theory of intelligent design was taken out of American mainstream teaching in schools. Though, some of us have no problem in accepting reality as a product of some superintelligence - whilst others mock the idea. Can we simply sit back and say the universe was a fluke? What about the fine tuning in our planets distance from the sun; including the fine tunings in the size and age of our sun or the moons gravitational pull on the earth? What about the abundant elements found on earth capable for producing life? Or as Einstein once put it... why should reality dance to the pipers tune?

Superstring Theory says that particles are not made up of little point-like units, but rather made up of tiny little strings that all vibrate with different frequencies. A certain frequency brings with it harmony, the chords of life as we see it today. One could imagine that the universe is like a giant harp - with God plucking at the strings so that they all make sense. The music of the universe plays an intrical overture to the sonata of the observer.

Parallel Universe theory can invite the infinite possibilities of a God. Perhaps an infinite amount of universes might mean, if you look through enough of them, in at least one of them might be Gods domain. And, as we have seen earlier, Hyperspace theory says that a twin universe might be curled up into a very small region of space in the hypothetical 6th dimension. Is this where the heavens are? We need not concern ourselves about the location of hell - some interpretations of the Bible class that we are living in hell - but to be accurate, the Bible does say that hell is found in the center of the Earth, where it is extremely hot nevertheless.

In fact, the Bible is highly scientific. Just there we have seen it putting hell into quite an appropriate place; since hell is depicted as being unbearably hot with brimstone and fire. It has also correctly predicted that the world was spherical - not flat as they once believed much later in history. Poor Christopher Columbas - it turns out that he was not the first to discover the world was round. The Bible also successfully predicts a beginning to our universe, and an end.

We must also remember, the Bible was written in an era when science was rife. In fact, most of the Bible writers in the new testament at least, may well have been 'scientists of their day' - certain scientific knowledge’s would have needed to be known, such as astrology, numerology and geology (just to mention a few). And many of the writers where Greek. We know that the Greek civilization where highly intelligent. The Greeks were the first to devise that all matter was made of tiny little units, and it was from them we obtain the word 'atom'. They also predicted Hyperspace... Also, circumcision, a Jewish tradition as i am sure you know, actually prevents certain types of disease - thus it is a 'cleaner' way to have sex. Also, fasting has cleansing properties, killing bacterium that form is the gut (forgive me for being so graphic, but to grasp the amount of bacteria in our gut, the human feces is made up of over 50% bacteria itself - the rest, used, dead matter), not to mention extending lifetimes, as fasting actually slows the bodily use of energy - and thus stores it for a longer-lived life. The scientific lists within the Bible seem endless...

For some people, God is the only way to explain reality and existence. For me, it is the only way to contemplate, not only reality and existence, but the fundamentals that allow reality and existence to be possible; and that is through consciousness. And here is the interesting part - there is only one unified consciousness in this world.
Arguments of this fact have been brought forward by a few physicists and philosophers. The idea is that no matter how individual we feel separate from the next human - we are inexorably tied, as there is no separate consciousness or mind.
One physicist called Ludvik Bass, who was a student of Erwin Schrödinger, shares the sentiment that there is only one single mind. So let's suppose that Bass is right; no two minds can exist independently, it would seem to suggest that our independence, our single-minded lives are nothing but illusions. Thus, let us consider this is true - out of this, i can begin with my description of God and every individual on the face of the planet - past and present.

Hidden, though intricately woven into reality of the physical and non-physical is the realm of consciousness. I envision the unified dimension of consciousness like a gigantic sky-scraper, with each office resembling a human mind. This building however, is powered, not by the individuals that make it, but by a God. This God powers the conscious being - this infinite power is the essence of God, and he/she ascribes how much energy is allowed for any single human being. We never leave this unit of unified consciousness - we are only under the illusion that we are somehow independent and separate to the next observer... and this delusion of the mind is brought about by awareness - brought about by life itself.

The Bible itself informs us that we are somehow separate of the 'netherworld' of God, and that when we die, we return to the God of the heavens... in much the same sense, death would be like awakening from a dream... an illusion of sorts, that the world we had been experiencing was nothing more than Gods dreaming mind. Let's now finish this part on Einstien’s response to question we are all asked at least once in our lifetimes. In response to a telegrammed question, 'do you believe God? Stop.' Einstein replied in 25 German words;

'I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony
of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the
doings of mankind.'

Last edited: Nov 18, 2007

3. ### Leo VolontRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,509
Well, yes, Einstein was correct in the sense that many Religions forfeit any claim for respect in that they create a patchwork of mostly silly doctrines… sometimes even dangerous and immoral doctrines as is the case with Christianity.

Any Religion that holds as its primary doctrine that Sins should be excused is simply not a Moral Force. And if Religion can’t be a moral force, then why have Religion at all?

Then we have Religions so artificially constructed that they no longer bear any correspondence to the Human Psychology. Its impossible to relate to Christianity, holistically. The Old Pagan Religions, with their Mythologies, clearly sourced directly out of the Dream Mind. Now, more than a thousand years after the decline of Paganism, people still dream in and amidst those same Gods, Demigods and Demons. The best that Paulist Christianity can do is defend a mostly intellectual construction – Faith becoming an intellectual assertion. But in Christianity there is nothing to Dream of. Being so disconnected from our Psychology, one is forced to doubt Christianity.

Well, yes, back when Catholic Civilization was still in sway, there had been the Re-Population of Psychological Reality in terms of Goddess Marianism, Saints, Angels and even demons and devils once more. People had a Religion that could be dreamt of. But Paulist Protestantism destroyed that, even for Catholics, as nobody can seriously maintain that Catholicism after the Reformation is anything close to what it had been before.

So Christianity, whether the Fundamentalist Paulism of the Protestants, or the Augustinian Paulism of the Catholic Bishops, is so artificial that Science hardly bothers to look at it.. supposing the most superficial arguments against religion sufficient to their purpose.

But other Religions certainly deserve more attention. Sufi Mysticism that sources out of Zoroastrianism, the first High Moral Religion, is both spiritually and psychologically valid. Much of Hindu Paganism, as it has continuously updated itself as Philosophy and knowledge of Psychology progressed, is also fascinating in its truths, both derived and Revealed.

Messages:
3,782
Why would God knowing this cause the universe to go back to Whence it came?

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

7. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
''Why would God knowing this cause the universe to go back to Whence it came?''

Which is exactly why God cannot be infinitely knowable of everything there is. However, with a little thought, one can overcome the paradox i figured today.

You can defy the uncertainty principle, have simultaneous knowledge of a particles path and position, whilst still remaining in the present....

SO HOW DOES ONE DEFY THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE?

Albert, Aharanov and D'Amato (ADD) point out a totally intelligent format of knowledge. If one makes a measurement of a particle in the past, they inform us, and another measurement of the momentum of the particle in the future, then one can have both records in the present with absolute certainty!!!

Is this what God does, and IF IT IS, then the paradox can be removable?

8. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,550
Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, though.

That's a fairly big exaggeration.

If God has no features that are different from quantum physics, we don't need two names for the same thing.

That's because so-called Intelligent Design Theory was a front for a new kind of biblically literal Creationism.

It also predicted that the value of pi is 3 (and not 3.14159...)

Does that mean you can read my mind?

Messages:
3,782
This does not answer my Question.

''Why would God knowing this cause the universe to go back to Whence it came?''

Anyone want to have a go at answering it?

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

10. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
''Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, though.''

Well, he did personally believe in Spinoza's God, a God that never concerned himself with the doings of mankind.

''That's a fairly big exaggeration.\\

If you mean, ''the one swift go'' part, you need to this in light of what would happen. First, from the small collection of particle that it is, 10^15, and having a being know the paths and locations, would crumble the inner most structures of the matter, reducing it to pure energy, and this energy would then propogate outwards, engulfing the rest of the matter in the universe, which is N=10^80...
More to this actually, for accuracy. The energy that spreads out would cause very powerful distortions, and even push matter outwards, and i do believe this would cause some type of OMEGA singularity, and hence, my description, ''sending everything back to whence it came...''

''If God has no features that are different from quantum physics, we don't need two names for the same thing.''

I totally agree. I would just be affraid that God would become more of a metaphor without some type of seperated description.

''That's because so-called Intelligent Design Theory was a front for a new kind of biblically literal Creationism.''

Did you agree with it being removed?

''It also predicted that the value of pi is 3 (and not 3.14159...)''

Yes i know

I was just trying to show my readers that the Greeks heavily influenced todays science...

''Does that mean you can read my mind?''

Maybe... according to theory. You have to admit, if the theorists are right, and independance is an illusion, it could answer for so much concerning Pyschophysics.

I would like to think so anyway. There is something very grand about the idea.

11. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
I understand your question better now.

Answer: God needs to be self-consistant... therefore, God cannot be outside His own rules. He must abide by quantum mechanics.

12. ### ylooshibreakingspells.netRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
84
Which is an un-sourced and, doubtless, out-of-context quote -that is, if it is actually something Einstein said or wrote. Where might one find such a quote? What are the "deadly errors" he is alleged to be referring to?

It might be expected that such a quote would be found in Science and Religion (Einstein, 1941), but it isn't. What is there, however, is a quote which reads, "[t]he main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God." The context of this quote relates to Einstein basically denouncing the idea of a personal god and criticizing the human need to create fantastical and supernatural explanations for the universe. Unlike the OP, I include citations.

Your fabrication of Einstein's view on God leaves the rest of us thinking you are ignorant or otherwise deluded. I lean toward the former since you clearly haven't read the political and sociological writings of Einstein in which he very clearly outlines his lack of belief in a personal god. His mentions of god are metaphorical as are the mentions of god by many atheistic scientists. His comments are eagerly misunderstood and misrepresented by supernaturalists and irrationalists who are eager to find smart people who believe in irrational concepts like gods.

One such quote, frequently misrepresented is "science without religion is blind." Those that quote Einstein in this out-of-context manner stray far away from quotes like:
As can be seen, Einstein had no god belief.

Its unclear how you can pose a fallacious complex question, which is then turned into an argument from authority to arrive at an age for a mythical or fantastical being. Indeed, the very authority that you presume (without reason, as I've indicated) held a belief in a personal god, refers to the human idea of gods as "fantastical" and things of "fantasy." From that fallacious assumption, you deem his authority to be enough to assume that your god 1) has a gender; 2) never aging. This is piss-poor reasoning to be sure.

Truly, we can dismiss the rest of your "essay" since you've completely mischaracterized Einstein and his beliefs about god. Instead, I'll focus on what little is left once the Einstein fallacy is canceled out.

Actually, there are other assumptions you're making about god that we can infer from this quote: 1) god has a gender; 2) god is real; 3) god is necessary; god is something that has qualities common enough that you assume "we all agree" on them. Biblical interpretations of god are easily dismissed since biblical mythology hasn't been shown to be authoritative or demonstrable. Moreover, gods are anthropomorphic manifestations of human fantasy, according to the very authority you've unsuccessfully attempted to appeal to (Einstein, 1941) and as evident in the words you wrote "He/She." Indeed, the very fact that you chose to capitalize "He/She" reveals the a priori acceptance you have that god(s) actually exist and that this god is personal and a divine ruler of humanity. An assumption that has not a shred of evidence to support it.

This means that certain particles have explosive tendencies. Even an amount of 10^15 particles would be sufficient in ultimately annihilating our universe in one swift flash of energy, sending our universe back whence it came.

Which particles? What are their names? Qualities? Why $$$10^1^5$$$ and not $$$10^1^0$$$ or $$$10^2^0$$$?

Another explanation is that your god is non-existent to begin with.

If you are classing astrology and numerology as "sciences," then you've just revealed yourself as pseudoscientific. The preceding bunk written about quantum physics, wave functions, yada, yada are pure pseudoscientific nonsense. Holographic universes & string theory... great cocktail party conversations but not worth the pixels they're typed in with regard to discussions about whatever god you're seeking to appeal to.

Or at least they were educated in the Greek language. Please cite a source that presents which biblical authors were actually Greek.

They were human. Humans are highly intelligent primates. Perhaps you're trying to say that the Greek culture had a high advancement of technology and academia compared to other civilizations.

Please, cite us a source to this tidbit of information. I'm very curious about it.

Don't you wash your penis? There's no scientific basis for this assumption. Which types of disease have been empirically demonstrated to exist more among the uncut versus the cut? Cite us a peer-reviewed source for this assumption, please.

This is complete and utter bollocks. Pseudoscience. Not a shred of evidence or a citation to support it. Fasting provides absolutely NO benefit for the vast majority of people who engage in it. Your preceding quote here also makes an assumption that bacteria in/on the human body is a bad thing. While there are some harmful bacteria, the vast majority of bacteria found in/on the human body are either beneficial or completely benign. Your statement implies that, by volume, half of human feces is bacteria. It isn't. It's waste. Probably you've misunderstood, or simply parroted someone else who misunderstood, an actual scientific examination of bacterial flora in fecal matter. There is about 50% more bacteria in fecal matter than cecal matter (Marteu et al, 2001), but there is NO ONE that says half of a turd is bacteria. NO ONE.
What is an example of a "scientific list" within the bible?

Which leaves the context out completely. Einstein was using a metaphorical reference to "god" and this is evident in his writings (which you might know if you'd actually read them rather than cherry pick quotes you *want* to believe about your authority). Moreover, Spinoza was a pantheist, which may be along the lines of the kind of god you're hoping exists (you certainly haven't demonstrated anything or even adequately provoked thoughts that extend beyond the pseudoscientific), and Einstein was seeking to politely reject the inevitable god question that was repeatedly posed to him (Jammer 1999). To put your cherry-picked quote (oft repeated by many supernaturalists an irrationalists over the years), lets look at another of Einsteins quotes:
References:

Dukas, Helen; Hoffman, Banesh (1981). Albert Einstein, The Human Side. Princeton University Press.

Einstein, Albert (1941) Science and Religion. Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York.

Jammer, Max (1999). Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology. Princeton University Press.

Marteau, Philippe; et al (2001). Comparative study of bacterial groups within the human cecal and fecal microbiota. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 67(10), 4939-4942.

13. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
I won't even respond to this. You have downright ignored anything i have said here, or even given it the real time of day.

If you took any time out of your day to find some of these things out yourself... though one of the questions you asked was alright i suppose.

14. ### Plazma Inferno!Ding Ding Ding DingAdministrator

Messages:
4,609
ylooshi cited references for his statements and further questions he addressed to you Reiku. He provided arguments why he thinks your idea has no foundation and he expects that you will respond.

Without will to discuss further about the subject with people who disagree with you, your OP's and whole thread's existence is pointless.

This is discussion board, not personal blog.

15. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238

''Which is an un-sourced and, doubtless, out-of-context quote -that is, if it is actually something Einstein said or wrote. Where might one find such a quote? What are the "deadly errors" he is alleged to be referring to? ''

Don't know... but i am sure if you search the web long enough, you will find it. I can't be bothered. I'll be honest.

''Your fabrication of Einstein's view on God leaves the rest of us thinking you are ignorant or otherwise deluded. I lean toward the former since you clearly haven't read the political and sociological writings of Einstein in which he very clearly outlines his lack of belief in a personal god. His mentions of god are metaphorical as are the mentions of god by many atheistic scientists. His comments are eagerly misunderstood and misrepresented by supernaturalists and irrationalists who are eager to find smart people who believe in irrational concepts like gods. ''

Well, i don't think it was out of context, read under the correct light. Whether it is or not, it was a mere qoute... You are right. What i know of Einstein though might be limited; Only text-book stuff.

''As can be seen, Einstein had no god belief.''

This is what I DON'T UNDERSTAND. Einstien did have a belief. He chose not to believe in a terra firma god - like Jehovah.

''Its unclear how you can pose a fallacious complex question, which is then turned into an argument from authority to arrive at an age for a mythical or fantastical being. Indeed, the very authority that you presume (without reason, as I've indicated) held a belief in a personal god, refers to the human idea of gods as "fantastical" and things of "fantasy." From that fallacious assumption, you deem his authority to be enough to assume that your god 1) has a gender; 2) never aging. This is piss-poor reasoning to be sure.

Truly, we can dismiss the rest of your "essay" since you've completely mischaracterized Einstein and his beliefs about god. Instead, I'll focus on what little is left once the Einstein fallacy is canceled out.''

Well, it isn't fallacious. You're being incompatant towards what is being said...

If Einstien refers to A god, then A god he refers to. He believed in A god, but chose to believe in A god that did not concern himself with our remedial existences. What is so hard to comprehend?

''This means that certain particles have explosive tendencies. Even an amount of 10^15 particles would be sufficient in ultimately annihilating our universe in one swift flash of energy, sending our universe back whence it came.

Which particles? What are their names? Qualities? Why and not or ?''

Oh here we go again... Plazma.. you wondered why i never wanted to answer...
To start, it doesn't matter. You could any of those numbers. Secondly, there are over 410 known particles and about 10^80 particles in the universe, and yo want to nit-pick at what type of particles i am on about...

... Ok... i'll humor you. A big cluster of dark matter in the outermost regions of the universe...

See how silly your question really is?

''If you are classing astrology and numerology as "sciences," then you've just revealed yourself as pseudoscientific. The preceding bunk written about quantum physics, wave functions, yada, yada are pure pseudoscientific nonsense. Holographic universes & string theory... great cocktail party conversations but not worth the pixels they're typed in with regard to discussions about whatever god you're seeking to appeal to.''

If you read more carefully, it was the science to their day. I certainlydon't hold Numerology a science to this day... Therego, i do not see you point yet again...

''Please, cite us a source to this tidbit of information. I'm very curious about it.''

I don't have a reference as such. Hyperspace predicts extra dimensions, and there was Plato's Allegory of the Cave, which actually predicted that reality was not what it seemed, and that you needed to leave the the shadows of the cave into the light. This was used as a GROUND STANDING POINT by the author of the Holographic Principle by d'Hooft.

''Don't you wash your penis? There's no scientific basis for this assumption. Which types of disease have been empirically demonstrated to exist more among the uncut versus the cut? Cite us a peer-reviewed source for this assumption, please.''

I do recall a program with a Dr. saying that there was evidence to suggest it was.

''This is complete and utter bollocks. Pseudoscience. Not a shred of evidence or a citation to support it. Fasting provides absolutely NO benefit for the vast majority of people who engage in it. Your preceding quote here also makes an assumption that bacteria in/on the human body is a bad thing. While there are some harmful bacteria, the vast majority of bacteria found in/on the human body are either beneficial or completely benign. Your statement implies that, by volume, half of human feces is bacteria. It isn't. It's waste. Probably you've misunderstood, or simply parroted someone else who misunderstood, an actual scientific examination of bacterial flora in fecal matter. There is about 50% more bacteria in fecal matter than cecal matter (Marteu et al, 2001), but there is NO ONE that says half of a turd is bacteria. NO ONE.''

No this is true. Your feces contains 50% bacterium. I don't need to citate. It is obvious you don't study shit. Therego, i will trust the science program i obviously took this from. I don't whip knowledge out of no fucking where. In fact, if you don't believe me, why don't you go onto one of these on-line Dr's and ask yourself, because again, i cannot be fucked going through
that kind of work for someone who is degrading my work like this.

''Which leaves the context out completely. Einstein was using a metaphorical reference to "god" and this is evident in his writings (which you might know if you'd actually read them rather than cherry pick quotes you *want* to believe about your authority). Moreover, Spinoza was a pantheist, which may be along the lines of the kind of god you're hoping exists (you certainly haven't demonstrated anything or even adequately provoked thoughts that extend beyond the pseudoscientific), and Einstein was seeking to politely reject the inevitable god question that was repeatedly posed to him (Jammer 1999). To put your cherry-picked quote (oft repeated by many supernaturalists an irrationalists over the years), lets look at another of Einsteins quotes: ''

And...>???? That is your response to a telagram i am qouting, and qouting Einstiens response??? Should it EVEN MATTER whether he meant it metaphorically or spiritually???? It really doesn't matter...

This is what you call, Nit-Picking.

I said Einstein believed in a God.

This is true.

I said hid God did not concern himself with the doings of mankind.

This is true.

I told you about the particles, and defying the uncertainty principle from todays dogmatic views...

And you tried to make it more complicated than it really required...

PLAZMA... please stay out in future. That was the biggest waste of my time.

16. ### Plazma Inferno!Ding Ding Ding DingAdministrator

Messages:
4,609
Good. Keep the discussion going on.
Although, it would be more readable with the quotes properly formatted.

If you started complicated subject like this, it's expected that you will need a bag of time.

It's quite silly asking me to 'stay out'. I'm responsible for every post, thread and forum here.

You 'cried' over this thread... Now keep it breathing.

17. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Do you feed the trolls?

Because from that display of work up there, i noticed this guy:

1. WANTED TO CAUSE ARGUEMENTS

2. He wanted to Nit-Pick at remedial calculations which i put him straight on.

And why should I have wasted my time to begin with...? My time is just as valuable as yours, and i AM VERY sure you would entertain even the most pickiest and dillusional or sorts, so why should I? I mean it was clear to me straight away this guy didn't know physics, and yet it never stopped him trying to make a mockery of it.

18. ### Plazma Inferno!Ding Ding Ding DingAdministrator

Messages:
4,609
That would be case if that someone responded just with: "You have no idea what you're talkin' about!". Then it's ok to ignore.
But, when the mentioned statement is wrapped in somewhat ample text substantiated with references, then it's matter of politeness to respond on that form of request, no matter if that infringes your tenets.

After all, no one of us is always right. Right?

19. ### YordaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,275
you're not really a christian, you just happened to be born in america. everybody knows that 99% of americans are christians.

but think about the other planets and solar systems. why is there not life in most of them? it's just a coincidence that there's life on earth. if you have a couple of quadrillion stars, of course there's gonna be life in at least one of them.

god is supposed to be omniscient, but there's one thing he can't know. he can't know his own actions.

Last edited: Nov 19, 2007
20. ### ylooshibreakingspells.netRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
84
Well it's not wonder Reiku didn't want to reply. He didn't have any answers that went beyond "it was a show I saw," or "the quote is real, trust me."

My favorite is still human fecal matter is 50% bacteria by volume.

Science forums draw out all sorts that want to pretend to be doing science. You'd think they'd at least try to get some of it right or to support it.

21. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Right? What makes your conclusions right?

And i did put you straight on those calculations... you were being, again remedial.

Messages:
22,087