If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Cypress]

When was this tested?

I knew you wouldn't recognize the equation without me telling you, or by you frantically Googling.

not up for debate!!

"A Century Into Quantum Mechanics, Physicists Still Can’t Agree What It Means"​

A new Nature survey of over 1,100 researchers reveals that physicists remain sharply divided on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, even 100 years after its development.

A Century Into Quantum Mechanics, Physicists Still Can’t Agree What It Means, Nature Survey Shows

A new Nature survey of over 1,100 researchers reveals that physicists remain sharply divided on the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

thequantuminsider.com

 

[Monad Portal]

First, use the word I used, don't change what I wrote.

The most famous equation in quantum mechanics is perfectly deterministic in predicting how the quantum wave function evolves through time.

It is generally believed it is the act of measurement that collapses the wave function to a single probability. Though even that is open to debate. The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is entirely deterministic and sees the probability distribution of the wave function to be representing different branches of physical reality.

yes. the slots on a roulette wheel are artificial.

 

[IBDaMann]

I knew you wouldn't recognize the equation without me telling you, or by you frantically Googling.

Nice pivot. The question remains, when was it tested?

"A Century Into Quantum Mechanics, Physicists Still Can’t Agree What It Means"​

You haven't said anything.

I'll add another question to the list that you can't answer: Why do you think that agreement is somehow needed?

 

[Monad Portal]

of course, they use probablity math with subatomic particles because measuring is difficult, the roulette wheel doesn't stop but it's still real.

 

[Cypress]

Nice pivot. The question remains, when was it tested?

First you have some frantic Googling homework to complete.
Tell me what the name of this equation is, before I have to invest time giving you more tuition-free education.

I'll add another question to the list that you can't answer: Why do you think that agreement is somehow needed?

I said there wasn't agreement and there were open questions about what quantum mechanics really is telling us about physical reality.
You claimed I was wrong about that.

Theories can and do change.

Only measurements are real.

 

[Monad Portal]

First you have some frantic Googling homework to complete.
Tell me what the name of this equation is, before I have to invest time giving you more tuition-free education.

I said there wasn't agreement and there were open questions about what quantum mechanics really is telling us about physical reality.
You claimed I was wrong about that.

Theories can and do change.

Only measurements are real.

no. the roulette reel is real even before it stops.

equations are functions essentially, and a plethora of value are predicted based on input.

its like you're dumber than shit.

 

[Cypress]

First you have some frantic Googling homework to complete.

Either IBDumbass (who claims to have read Steven Hawking's PhD dissertation in theoretical physics) doesn't recognize the most famous equation in quantum physics; or he is off frantically Googling trying to figure it out.

 

[Monad Portal]

Either IBDumbass (who claims to have read Steven Hawking's PhD dissertation in theoretical physics) doesn't recognize the most famous equation in quantum physics; or he is off frantically Googling trying to figure it out.

 

[Monad Portal]

Either IBDumbass (who claims to have read Steven Hawking's PhD dissertation in theoretical physics) doesn't recognize the most famous equation in quantum physics; or he is off frantically Googling trying to figure it out.

you're the dumbest person on the internet

 

[Cypress]

no. the roulette reel is real even before it stops.

The roulette wheel is a macroscopic physical object, not an isolated quantum system. The wave function is a mathematical representation of a quantum system. They are not analogous.

equations are functions essentially, and a plethora of value are predicted based on input.

Correct Einstein. Mathematics makes accurate predictions.
Your boyfriend IBDumbass howled at me that math does not make predictions.

 

[Monad Portal]

The roulette wheel is a macroscopic physical object, not an isolated quantum system. The wave function is a mathematical representation of a quantum system. They are not analogous.

Correct Einstein. Mathematics makes accurate predictions.
Your boyfriend IBDumbass howled at me that math does not make predictions.

they are perfectly analagous in this instance.

you are too dumb to understand.

 

[Cypress]

you're the dumbest person on the internet!!

Why do you follow me around and read everything I write then?

 

[Monad Portal]

Why do you follow me around and read everything I write then?

you happen to be involved in the same interest set as me.

you're much dumber however.

 

[IBDaMann]

First you have some frantic Googling homework to complete.

The answer you are EVADING is that it has never been tested. You have no business pretending to engage in any sort of discussion on this subject matter.

I said there wasn't agreement and there were open questions about what quantum mechanics really is

The question you are EVADING is why do you think that any agreement is necessary?

telling us about physical reality.

Objective truth is not a subjective matter of opinion. Science is not determined by consensus. Nobody owns either science or math.

Why are you concerned about "agreement"?

You claimed I was wrong about that.

You are wrong about virtually everything you write.

Theories can and do change.

Correct. That brings your grand total of correct things to 4.

Only measurements are real.

You have never defined "real". Just for the record, you are stating that empirical evidence is not real, yes?

 

[Cypress]

We don't see people creating new gods today.

New religions are emerging all the time. Wicca emerged in the 20th century, not to mention all the New Age stuff, and a cursory review of the internet would reveal numerous cults that have come and gone in the last century.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Agreed.

But if theists are being put on the spot to explain, so are atheists.

If nothing exists but inanimate matter and energy, then atheists are required to explain how a mathematically rational, lawfully organized, finely tuned cosmos could have originated from purely inanimate physical reasons and irrational chance.

The only worldview that is not on the hook to explain itself is agnosticism.

 

[Monad Portal]

The only worldview that is not on the hook to explain itself is agnosticism.

I like this.

you get 1 point.

your life score is 1.

 

[Into the Night]

More spin and dishonesty.

YOU are the one trying to deny ice, skin grafts, and that God has control of his own creation.

Lol... First, the Bible isn't the only source for human behavior at the time.

But it's the one you're attacking.

Second, human sacrifice, which preceded animal sacrifice, nearly happened in the Bible BECAUSE it was so common.

No such event is recorded.

I don't, liar.

Lie.

Incoherent babble. Void.

Yes, your religions are incoherent babble.

 

[Into the Night]

Thank you for that, Zen.

It is my opinion that anyone who says, "No gods** exist"...is making a blind guess every bit a much as anyone who says, "A GOD exists."

That is exactly right. ALL religions are based on a circular argument, with arguments extending from that. This itself is not a fallacy.
The other name for the circular argument is the Argument of Faith.

In other words, ALL religions are based on faith.

The Church of No God is just as much a religion as Christianity.

Attempting to prove a circular argument True or False causes the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

Maybe no gods exist; maybe one GOD exists; maybe many gods exist. Any of those things is possible. We simply do not know.

The statement of an atheist. You simply take no position on the matter.

The REALITY of existence is a very mysterious thing. There may come a time when the science of today will be regarded the way we currently regard "the science" of three thousand years ago.

It would be advantageous for you to study phenomenology, a branch of philosophy. This branch defines what 'real' means, and why.

Science itself not reality. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. An argument that uses it's own conclusion as a predicate is a circular argument.

Now let's look at 'real'.

ALL you know of the world (except of your own existence), comes to you through your senses, even if one augments those senses with instrumentation, this is still true. Your brain must interpret these senses and connect them with how you figure the Universe works. To you, this is 'reality'. Thus, 'reality' is as unique to you as a fingerprint. It is different from mine. It is different from ZenMode. It is no different for me, or ZenMode, or anyone else wandering around this planet.

That said, there ARE common experiences that shape how we perceive the world. These come from the same type of school teachings, the same nation we live in, the same language we speak, etc. This produces some common aspects to our personal models of the Universe that we share.

Thus, there is no absolute 'real'. Real is simply your own personal model of how the Universe works, and it's different from anybody else's, even if it shares some aspects common to another with shared experiences.

This concept has been explored in some books and films as well. Since any good piece of fiction requires building a world of characters and how they relate, it is natural to explore how we each build our 'world view'.

One good series you might enjoy is The Day the Universe Changed. It's an old series, but he explores this very concept, building his final conclusion in the last episode of the nine part series. Throughout the series, he describes how technology, war, and institutionalizing changes how people perceive what is 'real'.

You, and others, may disagree with my opinion. Fine. We can live with that.

Because what is 'real' is unique to each of us, that's a given.
Unfortunately, a fundamentalist finds it difficult to realize this.

** When I use the words "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST. I acknowledge that such an entity(s) may NOT exist.

The interesting thing about the Theory of Creation (not a theory of science, BTW!), is that it does not require a god or gods at all. It only states that life arrived on Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence.

For all we know, accepting this theory as True, is that Man is nothing more than the result of some aliens that had some horrible lab accident and they decided to dump it on Earth to get rid of it.

Or, it might be a god or gods responsible. We simply don't know, assuming acceptance of this theory.

Belief in a god or gods, but being unable to describe the character of such because you can't really know, is the position of an agnostic.
Not taking a position at all on whether a god or gods exist or not is the position of an atheist.

Claiming that no god or gods exist at all is a religion position. I call it the Church of No God. This is generally a fundamentalist style religion. Such believers are often fundamentalists, trying to prove their religion True. Their attempts often follow an attempt to prove a negative fallacy, an argument of ignorance fallacy, or that it's some kind of 'science' (ignoring what 'science' actually is). ZenMode has attempted all three approaches.

I don't care whether he believes there is no god. It's his fallacies I protest.

 

[Into the Night]

That wasn't the implication in the Bible and you know it. Stop playing dumb

The implication of the Bible is that God has control of his own creation. Why do you think that is 'playing dumb'?

As far as walking on water, I do it quite often. People drive on water. Water has only one structure. It is not an element. Like any substance, it has a solid, liquid, and gaseous phase.

You simply claim it's impossible to walk on water. Ice is water. a sheet of liquid water on a street is liquid water. Even standing in a river fishing for trout can be said to be walking on water.

The Bible describes Jesus Christ walking on deep liquid water. Why do you think God does not have control of his own creation? He knows far more than you do! No theory of science is violated by what Jesus Christ did.

That wasn't the implication in the Bible and you know it, not was it what I was referring to. Stop playing dumb

It is YOU playing dumb.

* You think you can make evidence just disappear.
* You think you can prove your religion True.
* You think God and Jesus Christ have no control over their own creation, even though the Bible clearly states who created the Earth and everything on it.
* You accept the Bible and try to deny it at the same time, leaving you in paradox.
* You attempt to describe your religion as 'science'.
* You attempt to try to prove a negative.
* You attempt to try to conduct a proof of ignorance.

I you want to believe there is no god or gods, that's your prerogative, but you can't prove it, and you can't prove any other religion False.

Personally, I consider your religion one of darkness, facing your own impending death with great fear; for to you, that is the end of your existence. That is the reality that you have chosen to believe. There is no other alternative your religion can conclude.

At least, to an atheist, the impending death is simply a leap into the Great Unknown. To you, however, it means Nonexistance.

To me, death is just a transition to life everlasting, even with the possibility of obtaining a new and incorruptible body, just as Jesus Christ did. I DO recognize my religion to be based on faith. I cannot prove it. I do not try to.

Right...he's able to defy science. He can magically modify the surface tension of water to a grown man can walk on it right, Mr. Science?

Grown men walk on water quite regularly, Void. God has control over his own creation. He can choose to walk on liquid water any way he wants to. No theory of science has been violated.

Leviticus 4:35

And all its fat he shall remove as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar, on top of the Lord 's food offerings. And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.

Genesis 8:20

Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

The best animal was selected for these sacrifices. It was in similitude of the sacrifice God would make of his own Son, Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ Himself changed the sacrifice to a sacrament, designed to again remember his sacrifice he made, now considered history. He was a god coming as a man, lowering Himself to our state, to suffer death...to conquer it. Death still occurs (this we inherit from Adam's actions), but it has no more sting (this we inherit from the actions of Jesus Christ and God). Instead, it becomes merely a transition to everlasting life.

Thus, we inherit both death, and everlasting life,

Incoherent babbling

Incoherent babbling.

Your religions ARE incoherent babbling.

* You deny theories of science, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
* You deny statistical and probability mathematics.
* You deny logic.
* You are a fundamentalist.

 

[Into the Night]

First, use the word I used, don't change what I wrote.

The most famous equation in quantum mechanics is perfectly deterministic in predicting how the quantum wave function evolves through time.

It is generally believed it is the act of measurement that collapses the wave function to a single probability. Though even that is open to debate. The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is entirely deterministic and sees the probability distribution of the wave function to be representing different branches of physical reality.

Math error:
Probability math is not a random number. Use of singular for multiple.

Redefinition fallacy (function<->probability, function<->reality, function<->quantum mechanics). Buzzword fallacies (branches of physical reality, many worlds interpretation).

Your BS isn't working.