|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A Prerequisite To Discussing God
I don't know why I haven't mentioned this previously. But the fact is that no one, religious or not, can intelligently discuss God or religion without becoming familiar with all of the known aspects of the double slit experiment. So do it now.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Prerequisite To Discussing God
The double slit experament is completely irrelevent to discussing CHRISTIANITY intelligently. In what way is it relevant to discussing other religions? And why?
Did you mean to say that no one can disprove the existense of God without a complete knowledge of all aspects of the double slit experiment? And again, why? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Prerequisite To Discussing God
this is straightforwardly false, but then again, you knew that.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Prerequisite To Discussing God
I'll grant that you can take out the word "religion" from my original post.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Prerequisite To Discussing God
[ QUOTE ]
this is straightforwardly false, but then again, you knew that. [/ QUOTE ] I have too few posts to begin contradicting myself (by berating other posters), but was this an attempt at some kind of point? And if so what was it? Who was this even directed at, Sklansky or myself? Sorry If I come off as an ass but whatthewhodawhatee? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Prerequisite To Discussing God
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] this is straightforwardly false, but then again, you knew that. [/ QUOTE ] I have too few posts to begin contradicting myself (by berating other posters), but was this an attempt at some kind of point? And if so what was it? Who was this even directed at, Sklansky or myself? Sorry If I come off as an ass but whatthewhodawhatee? [/ QUOTE ] If you look at the “Re:” right above the body of the post (the heading, I guess we can call it) the screen name after the "Re" shows who it replies to. In this case, snowden719 is replying to Sklansky. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Prerequisite To Discussing God
like this?
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Prerequisite To Discussing God
Exactly. But, I forgot to mention, you can only see the "Re:" while viewing posts in flat mode. Do you SEE why? LOL.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Prerequisite To Discussing God
Double-slit experiments with light show that light behaves like a wave, even though it also consists of particles. In fact, even a single particle behaves like a wave. So we have a mysterious duality where a photon appears to be in more than one place at the same time.
Is it this duality in nature that is supposed to inform our discussion, or what? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Prerequisite To Discussing God
[ QUOTE ]
Double-slit experiments with light show that light behaves like a wave, even though it also consists of particles. In fact, even a single particle behaves like a wave. So we have a mysterious duality where a photon appears to be in more than one place at the same time [/ QUOTE ] Another scientific paradox. The presumption is that light must contain matter and therefore one goes from there.It IS only a theory you know. Spinning thoughts and leaving the earth. Back to Newton.He saw the seven colors come out of the prism and ergo the seven colors are contained in light. He furthur posited that particles came out of the prism thus continuing the atomistic view of light. It is interesting to note that there were some respected scientists at that time who did not believe this to be the truth(Huygens,Young). Also, and of note, Goethe did his own experiments and did not agree with Newton. Science goes on ,carrying a preconceived notion into the future and you and I are stuck with particles that aren't. LOL. To Sklansky-Only the chosen few(physicists and pretenders) can intelligently come to grips with the Creator? You must explain yourself--enough of this"I lead you through the labyrinth stuff"--come out of the closet. carlo |
|
|