A Prerequisite To Discussing God - Page 2

#11 10-07-2005, 11:11 AM

Maybe the point of this post is that before theists or non-theists go running off discussing God and the nature of the universe, they should have some understanding of how complicated that nature really is from a human perspective at this time. The double slit experiment shows that we can't even fully understand the why/how of wave-particle duality when applied to a single particle. How then can we accept this nice and tidy explanation for the entire existence of everything given by a 2000-year old text? I think exposure to QM and relativity theory and experiments (as well as M-theory and other more radical stuff) is valuable for anyone discussing "God" -- not because QM and relativity explain everything or debunk religion, but because they expand the human mind and forces one to realize that the universe is far different than we normally think from our perspective, and certainly far different than people thought it was before 1900. We don't need to know what implications follow from these theories and experiments as yet, just know that the implications have already shattered the layman's concept of the universe and may even shatter the most knowledgeable scientists' concept as well.

IronUnkind · #12 10-07-2005, 11:40 AM

If you provide support for this outlandish statement, then I would be happy to debate you as to why it is false.

bocablkr · #13 10-07-2005, 01:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the point of this post is that before theists or non-theists go running off discussing God and the nature of the universe, they should have some understanding of how complicated that nature really is from a human perspective at this time. The double slit experiment shows that we can't even fully understand the why/how of wave-particle duality when applied to a single particle. How then can we accept this nice and tidy explanation for the entire existence of everything given by a 2000-year old text? I think exposure to QM and relativity theory and experiments (as well as M-theory and other more radical stuff) is valuable for anyone discussing "God" -- not because QM and relativity explain everything or debunk religion, but because they expand the human mind and forces one to realize that the universe is far different than we normally think from our perspective, and certainly far different than people thought it was before 1900. We don't need to know what implications follow from these theories and experiments as yet, just know that the implications have already shattered the layman's concept of the universe and may even shatter the most knowledgeable scientists' concept as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kid,

Do you ever work? Where do you get the time to write such insightful responses? You say what I would like to say but don't have the time to do. That is why most of my posts are short.

andyfox · #14 10-07-2005, 02:00 PM

Might Sklansky have also been referring to whether or not God plays dice?

eOXevious · #15 10-07-2005, 02:14 PM

Well the world and universe are confusing, and I think people should have a lot more knowledge of the Universe before discussing it's exsistance and creation. But, it's confusing, beautiful, and miraculous that can anyone just sit back for one second and look around and say, this just cannot be the product of chance, that possibly we were designed.. I know I can, and I do it all the time.

carlo · #16 10-07-2005, 02:42 PM

[ 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

hurlyburly · #17 10-07-2005, 02:43 PM

I only had to go out to 2 different websites to start seeing where he's coming from:
This then this.

IronUnkind · #18 10-07-2005, 04:03 PM

Thanks, but I'm already well-acquainted with the topic. I don't object to the relevance of these matters, but I disagree that a familiarity with them is essential for intelligent discussion.

hurlyburly · #19 10-07-2005, 04:39 PM

Ok, sorry I misinterpreted you.

David speaks in absolutes, he also thinks animals murder each other...

#20 10-07-2005, 05:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Kid,

Do you ever work? Where do you get the time to write such insightful responses? You say what I would like to say but don't have the time to do. That is why most of my posts are short.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I just finished my second tour through grad school and have had some time on my hands of late, I guess. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]