It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Beyond A Reasonable Doubt - Part Four

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Seapeople
Trust me rapheal,

I may not be an expert in the field, but I am aware of precisely the issues that you are bringing up when you refer to quantum mechanics. However, you are failing to mention, that though dualities are represented in quantum mechanics, that is only for statistical purposes.

Quantum mechanics has much base in statistical probability. In no way does it refute anything that I have said. There are issues that have yet to be explained in QM. I won't try discussing them on a religon forum because god knows he didn't make the base of these people smart enough to understand algebra, let alone concepts of statistics, probability, calculous, ect.

Science does not exist simply for "statistical purposes". Science whether it be theoretical or applied has one purpose-- to describe that which exists.

I agree there is no need to address QM in detail. However, if one is to bring science into a theological debate, one should be willing to at least consider that science could be used to describe God. Unfortunately our system of mathematics does not handle the infinite very well. But does that mean that God as an omnipotent, infinite being does not exist or does it mean that man at this stage of development has yet to discover the mathematics/sciences which allows all pieces of the puzzle to fall into a proper perspective?

To address your point. Part, if not the whole of your argument was that an omnipotent being would not be bound to our laws. Our laws of science. Now, I STRONGLY disagree with you when it comes to this. I do not believe by any means that a god could circumvent basic math. I will leave that alone however.

You err. You assume the "laws of science" exclude that which I described. In reality it is only those laws which we understand which exclude the possibility. 1000 years ago, the known laws of science excluded the possibility of tons of steel flying through the air. Today, that is a common occurance. 1000 years from know one can only guess what "our laws of science" will allow.

You see, even if an omnipotent god was not bound by our laws, WE ARE. We can experience nothing that stands outside those laws either partly, or fully. In no way would we as humans be able to experience an omnipotent god. In no way would that same omnipotent god be able to interact with our environment in a observable way.

1000 years ago, man experienced sunlight warming his face even though his laws of science knew nothing of photons transferring energy. By your logic, he could not experience that which could not be quantified by the knowledge of science of his time. Ergo, he could not experience sunlight warming his face. Rubbish.

And, since you seem to be educated, you may be able to understand the point we are trying to make in this thread. You may be christians, and therefore refuse to accept it, but I believe that unlike the majority of people attacking this idea, you are actually smart enough to understand.

Understand? Sure I do. I simply do not agree with your conclusions.

As they stand now, your arguments are weak. They are the same arguments made 100 years before many worlds quantum theory. The science of the 1800's is holding you back.

As I stated, many worlds QT does hold the perspective for understanding how an omnipotent being and free will can co-exist. If you are not willing to form a proper hypothesis and consider how the theory could apply to the question, that is your choice. If you do not believe that Many worlds is a valid theory that too is your choice.

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 02:27 AM

Originally posted by Seapeople
First off, it is not my fault that you are too lazy to do your research. That is probably the main reason you actually subscribe to the horrible mess that is your bible. Because you just are too lazy to look into it. So, in turn, I should expect that you are too lazy to read my entire posts. You would be too lazy to look back and read what I have told you. Likely, you have someone over your shoulder telling you what I wrote, because you simply can't read it.

No, I asked you a direct question and you didn't answer it. If you'll show me in this thread, where you addressed TO ME that you believe that God may exist, I'll drop this part of the argument. And again, stop with the insults. They make you look bad.

I have stated many times that there could be a creator. It is not my fault that you ignore it. Well, can't read it. I am a better person than you for reasons such as this. And yes, I insult you. I insult anyone who tries to speak intelligently when they are clearly about as smart as, well I will get banned for saying that. So I will leave it be.

Who are you to determine my intelligence? Becuase of my beliefs, you assume I'm stupid? Some of the most intelligent people I've ever knows are Christians. Speak with Barry Young some day. I can't believe you haven't been warned by a mod yet for this childish behavior of yours. And again, show me where you've addressed to me that you believe there could be a creater (In this thread).

Let me be more clear for the person who is reading this to you. I cannot say yes or no to their being a creator. However, I do have the ability to determine maximum capabilities of that creator. have the ability to determine maximum capabilities of our creator!? Based on what!? Are you more intelligent than our creator? You think using our science, and the restrictions that THE CREATOR PLACED ON US, you can correctly determine the maximum capabilities of said creator? Seems a bit pompous to me.

You are a christian. Therefore, you refuse to accept rational thinking.

Wow, you just love to discriminate people because of their views right? It's funny, think about what you'd sound like if you were to replace the word "Christian" in most of your posts with the word "Black" or "gay". in most of your posts.

I think Raphael_UO has already addressed the rest of your questions.

Take care.

posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 04:59 AM
Two WATS in one thread!

There ya go Herman- good job, and Raphael too.

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in