• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Quantum mechanics teaches a probabilistic, not deterministic, universe

Status
Not open for further replies.

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Big foot %
You got it!

.
A funny philosiphy that has zero to do with science and religion really.

Determinism is the philosophical theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Determinism is at times understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot act otherwise than they do. The theory holds that the universe is utterly rational because complete knowledge of any given situation assures that unerring knowledge of its future is also possible.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Free will and determinism? Note this fascinating Quora answer and the spot I highlighted...


Paul Ikeda, HSDD Expert, 1st to solve EMI issues blocking Gigabit Rollout for 2+ years.
Updated Sep 17
“How can things have both particle and wave properties?”
Good question.
Accepted science can’t answer that question but I once asked myself that same question in the early 90s and came up with this model which is just my own hypothesis, as an expert in the behavior of electromagnetic waves in the field of high speed digital design, of how something can have properties of both a particle and a wave:

Figure 1: A Dual Particle Wave Helix Model shows a particle in positive time entangled with an antiparticle in negative time such that the pair are locked in a virtual dual orbit as they propagate through space in differential time.
Negative Time:
To understand what negative time is we need to go back to the Big Bang at the beginning of time when all matter and antimatter was initially created as entangled particle pairs.
According to CPT symmetry which stands for Charge conjugation, Parity transformation, and Time reversal, for an antiverse to be consistent it requires all three symmetries.
Most scientists found time reversal too hard to swallow due to paradoxes like the grandfather paradox, but lets assume its true for now.
Remember it’s the beginning of time when all matter/antimatter pairs were created. Normally if an entangled pair was created today they would both exist in spacetime moving in opposite directions of space. But at the Big Bang space and time flip-flop so let’s assume the pair were created moving in opposite directions of time instead satisfying CPT symmetry.
Besides, if matter/antimatter pairs were moving in opposite directions in space at the Big Bang, that would create a conundrum. After all, if all matter expanded or inflated away from the singularity, wouldn’t that imply that all anti-matter must have been created moving towards the singularity?
But here’s the thing: reverse time at the beginning of time wouldn’t be time running in reverse like a video running backwards. That would imply a history and at the beginning of time, there is no history. Therefore antimatter running backwards through time starting from zero must exist in a dimension of negative time!
A good analogy of the time line would be a number line which has both negative and positive integers counting up from a common origin:
..., -10, -9, -8, -7, -6, -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5, +6, +7, +8, +9, +10, ...
Notice that the two time rays never overlap, so there’s no chance of going backwards to ones own past. Essentially you just have two time rays with each following the arrow of increasing entropy.
Furthermore thr traditional light cone of the Big Bang that represents 3D space as a 2D disk that expands over time would now be a dual light cone which also happens to be a more proper analog of the dual cone used in conics theory.

Figure 2: The Big Bang Dual light cone model explains the symmetry of matter as predicted by Noether’s Theorem.
Not only that, when taking the square root of some value is required, then many tend to just ignore negative values when they don’t make sense to us even though it’s correct to say that the results should be both positive and negative.
When we include an antiverse, take a look at what happens to the plot of the lorentz factor, α vs relative velocity, β:

Figure 2: Alpha vs Beta plot. The lorentz factor vs relative velocity when taking both positive and negative values into account results in a unit circle! positive and negative beta represents relative motion apart from each other or towards each other. Positive and negative values for alpha represent the universe and the hidden anti-verse.
Moving on, because each particle is entangled with it’s anti-particle mate, the dual universes would not be two independent universes. They would actually be identical mirrored Universes that shared a single determinism. another words the two would actually behave as a single universe as two sides of the same coin. Yet because matter and antimatter existed in oppodite dimensions of time, they would never have self annihilated.
Instead they would coexist in differential time 180° out of phase from each other. That’s why there is no evidence of the antimatter created by the Big Bang.
According to CPT symmetry, an observer in one universe would not be able to distinguish which universe they existed in which is exactly what we would expect in the dual light cone universe. They are identical but opposite universes.
Now since they exist in two different dimensions of time but in the same three dimensions of space, then if you rotated one cone and fliped it on top of the other, all particles would align in space except for particles rotating with an angular momentum. Matter and antimatter would both be rotating in the same direction of CW or CCW but they would be 180° phase shifted from one another which brings us back to the dual helix in differential time.

And yet, if we ever tried to observe the particle directly we could not ever be able to observe two particles with opposite charges in a dual orbit. The act of observing the particle would break the entanglement and we could only ever be able to observe a single particle with a single charge moving in a straight line through spacetime.
This new logical model would immediately explain:
• why we can’t find the antimatter created at the Big Bang
• the properties of quantum spin in orbits that are larger than the particle
• intrinsic dipole moments where they behave as if they were dipole bar magnets spinning in a magnetic field
• why quantum spin can only be measured to be either up or down regardless of the angle that we orient the electric field
• why they seem to require two rotations in order to complete a single wave instead of one rotation per wavelength as we would expect for a single particle that was moving in a rotational path.
• dual universes explains the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle where each universe can only observe half of the information.
How free will can exist in a deterministic universe due to the fact that uncertainty prevents our knowing our own deterministic future. We choose our path, but the path can only be predicted by some higher dimensional being who can see both frames of time at once thus resolving the logical paradox of free will and a deterministic future.
• why the durac equation predicts both matter and antimatter
• why the durac equation predicts a g factor of two
• waves propagating through differential time explains instantanious action at a distance
• how a light wave can self propagate forever through a vacuum
• why time only flows in the direction of increasing entropy
• the missing loop of charged particles that can explain how magnetic fields are created.
• why its not a negative charge over an infinite virtual ocean of negative charged particles with a void, but simply a negative charged particle and a positive charged particle.
• how it could be the logical model for one of the two hidden extra-dimensional loop dimensions per world line of string theory. The second orthogonal hidden dimension is explained in another logical model which explains gravity, dark matter, gravitons, how the Einstein Rosen Bridge is maintained by negative energy, unifies all forces as the EM force and finally explains what caused the Big Bang.
• why EM waves seem to propagate in both directions of time
• why antimatter seems to behave exactly like matter in reverse time
• where the antimatter came from that annihilates with matter at the event horrizon of black holes thus resolving the black hole paradox
and probably many other unsolved mysteries of physics. in fact between all three parts of my proposed TOE, every mystery, singularity, unsolved paradox can be logically explained in simple and self consistent manner. But, again, I digress.
Back to your question: Does this explain the evidence of the particle/wave behavior?
Yes, I think it does. Since the entanglement of the particles across dimensions of time are what causes the properties of the wave, observing the particle would break the entanglement and collapse the wave so that the two particles would no longer propagate in a virtual dual orbit in differential time and instead move in a straight line as a single particle in normal spacetime.
Left unobserved, then the entangled particles propagate through both slits though they be in opposite universes of differential time which causes the interferance pattern while we only observe the evidence of a single photon hitting the screen at a time. Another words we observe the evidence of a single photon hitting the screen one at a time, but where the photon strikes the screen is determined by their refraction through both slits which therefore causes the probability wave distribution pattern of photons hitting the screen. i.e. bright bands of high probability and dark bands of low probability.
What's your point?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Too long, didn't read. But out of curiosity, since you claim to know about quantum mechanics, I"d like to know what the highest level of mathematics and physics courses that you have taken are.
Home schooled in advanced quantum mechanics at grandma's house?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Free will and determinism? Note this fascinating Quora answer and the spot I highlighted...


Paul Ikeda, HSDD Expert, 1st to solve EMI issues blocking Gigabit Rollout for 2+ years.
Updated Sep 17
“How can things have both particle and wave properties?”
Good question.
Accepted science can’t answer that question but I once asked myself that same question in the early 90s and came up with this model which is just my own hypothesis, as an expert in the behavior of electromagnetic waves in the field of high speed digital design, of how something can have properties of both a particle and a wave:

Figure 1: A Dual Particle Wave Helix Model shows a particle in positive time entangled with an antiparticle in negative time such that the pair are locked in a virtual dual orbit as they propagate through space in differential time.
Negative Time:
To understand what negative time is we need to go back to the Big Bang at the beginning of time when all matter and antimatter was initially created as entangled particle pairs.
According to CPT symmetry which stands for Charge conjugation, Parity transformation, and Time reversal, for an antiverse to be consistent it requires all three symmetries.
Most scientists found time reversal too hard to swallow due to paradoxes like the grandfather paradox, but lets assume its true for now.
Remember it’s the beginning of time when all matter/antimatter pairs were created. Normally if an entangled pair was created today they would both exist in spacetime moving in opposite directions of space. But at the Big Bang space and time flip-flop so let’s assume the pair were created moving in opposite directions of time instead satisfying CPT symmetry.
Besides, if matter/antimatter pairs were moving in opposite directions in space at the Big Bang, that would create a conundrum. After all, if all matter expanded or inflated away from the singularity, wouldn’t that imply that all anti-matter must have been created moving towards the singularity?
But here’s the thing: reverse time at the beginning of time wouldn’t be time running in reverse like a video running backwards. That would imply a history and at the beginning of time, there is no history. Therefore antimatter running backwards through time starting from zero must exist in a dimension of negative time!
A good analogy of the time line would be a number line which has both negative and positive integers counting up from a common origin:
..., -10, -9, -8, -7, -6, -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5, +6, +7, +8, +9, +10, ...
Notice that the two time rays never overlap, so there’s no chance of going backwards to ones own past. Essentially you just have two time rays with each following the arrow of increasing entropy.
Furthermore thr traditional light cone of the Big Bang that represents 3D space as a 2D disk that expands over time would now be a dual light cone which also happens to be a more proper analog of the dual cone used in conics theory.

Figure 2: The Big Bang Dual light cone model explains the symmetry of matter as predicted by Noether’s Theorem.
Not only that, when taking the square root of some value is required, then many tend to just ignore negative values when they don’t make sense to us even though it’s correct to say that the results should be both positive and negative.
When we include an antiverse, take a look at what happens to the plot of the lorentz factor, α vs relative velocity, β:

Figure 2: Alpha vs Beta plot. The lorentz factor vs relative velocity when taking both positive and negative values into account results in a unit circle! positive and negative beta represents relative motion apart from each other or towards each other. Positive and negative values for alpha represent the universe and the hidden anti-verse.
Moving on, because each particle is entangled with it’s anti-particle mate, the dual universes would not be two independent universes. They would actually be identical mirrored Universes that shared a single determinism. another words the two would actually behave as a single universe as two sides of the same coin. Yet because matter and antimatter existed in oppodite dimensions of time, they would never have self annihilated.
Instead they would coexist in differential time 180° out of phase from each other. That’s why there is no evidence of the antimatter created by the Big Bang.
According to CPT symmetry, an observer in one universe would not be able to distinguish which universe they existed in which is exactly what we would expect in the dual light cone universe. They are identical but opposite universes.
Now since they exist in two different dimensions of time but in the same three dimensions of space, then if you rotated one cone and fliped it on top of the other, all particles would align in space except for particles rotating with an angular momentum. Matter and antimatter would both be rotating in the same direction of CW or CCW but they would be 180° phase shifted from one another which brings us back to the dual helix in differential time.

And yet, if we ever tried to observe the particle directly we could not ever be able to observe two particles with opposite charges in a dual orbit. The act of observing the particle would break the entanglement and we could only ever be able to observe a single particle with a single charge moving in a straight line through spacetime.
This new logical model would immediately explain:
• why we can’t find the antimatter created at the Big Bang
• the properties of quantum spin in orbits that are larger than the particle
• intrinsic dipole moments where they behave as if they were dipole bar magnets spinning in a magnetic field
• why quantum spin can only be measured to be either up or down regardless of the angle that we orient the electric field
• why they seem to require two rotations in order to complete a single wave instead of one rotation per wavelength as we would expect for a single particle that was moving in a rotational path.
• dual universes explains the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle where each universe can only observe half of the information.
How free will can exist in a deterministic universe due to the fact that uncertainty prevents our knowing our own deterministic future. We choose our path, but the path can only be predicted by some higher dimensional being who can see both frames of time at once thus resolving the logical paradox of free will and a deterministic future.
• why the durac equation predicts both matter and antimatter
• why the durac equation predicts a g factor of two
• waves propagating through differential time explains instantanious action at a distance
• how a light wave can self propagate forever through a vacuum
• why time only flows in the direction of increasing entropy
• the missing loop of charged particles that can explain how magnetic fields are created.
• why its not a negative charge over an infinite virtual ocean of negative charged particles with a void, but simply a negative charged particle and a positive charged particle.
• how it could be the logical model for one of the two hidden extra-dimensional loop dimensions per world line of string theory. The second orthogonal hidden dimension is explained in another logical model which explains gravity, dark matter, gravitons, how the Einstein Rosen Bridge is maintained by negative energy, unifies all forces as the EM force and finally explains what caused the Big Bang.
• why EM waves seem to propagate in both directions of time
• why antimatter seems to behave exactly like matter in reverse time
• where the antimatter came from that annihilates with matter at the event horrizon of black holes thus resolving the black hole paradox
and probably many other unsolved mysteries of physics. in fact between all three parts of my proposed TOE, every mystery, singularity, unsolved paradox can be logically explained in simple and self consistent manner. But, again, I digress.
Back to your question: Does this explain the evidence of the particle/wave behavior?
Yes, I think it does. Since the entanglement of the particles across dimensions of time are what causes the properties of the wave, observing the particle would break the entanglement and collapse the wave so that the two particles would no longer propagate in a virtual dual orbit in differential time and instead move in a straight line as a single particle in normal spacetime.
Left unobserved, then the entangled particles propagate through both slits though they be in opposite universes of differential time which causes the interferance pattern while we only observe the evidence of a single photon hitting the screen at a time. Another words we observe the evidence of a single photon hitting the screen one at a time, but where the photon strikes the screen is determined by their refraction through both slits which therefore causes the probability wave distribution pattern of photons hitting the screen. i.e. bright bands of high probability and dark bands of low probability.

The fact that the thesis of determinism has been empirically refuted, and therefore cannot be employed to deny the reality of free will, is indisputable. And one doesn't really need an extensive dissemination on QM in order to show that determinism is empirically false. The realism postulate has been shown to fail in various experiments on quanta, just as the locality (localness) postulate has. See the findings cited in posts # 11 and #19 here:

Solve the Riddle of Compatibilism, Win Big Prize

The failure of the realism postulate means that quanta do not exist with definite properties in the absence of or prior to a measurement. The thesis of determinism requires that the world have a definite state at t0 in order to determine what
happens at t1.

These facts are upsetting to people who have an allegiance to determinism as their religion because it undercuts the denial that (at least some) people are able to choose their actions.

Oddly, when faced with these facts, it isn't unusual for those dedicated to the thesis of determinism to assert that the world is dualistic, somehow made up of two non-interacting "levels" or "worlds," with quantum indeterminism confined to the "micro-world". It's all very confused and delusional.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Big foot %

A funny philosiphy that has zero to do with science and religion really.
Why do you find it funny?

Determinism is the philosophical theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Determinism is at times understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot act otherwise than they do. The theory holds that the universe is utterly rational because complete knowledge of any given situation assures that unerring knowledge of its future is also possible.
The theory does not hold that it's possible.

.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
BB should have provided at the very least a url where he got his cut-and-paste, and put what is not his own comment in quote.

What bb highlighted is his main point, which is total rubbish. The question is why bb posted that whole thing in the first place?
I believe it's because he feels that if he surrounds his favorite remark with a lot of science talk it lends the remark credibility.

BB hasn't been here long enough to know that forum rules require attributions for copy/pasted articles.
I think 6+ years is time enough. He joined in Oct of 2012.

.
.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
A bit lengthy and speculative in places, but certainly QM is one of the modern theories that seems to militate against a deterministic universe.

Chaos theory does a bit of the same, acknowledging, as it does, that systems exist for which infinitesimally small changes in initial conditions lead to arbitrarily large changes in outcome. So if you put the two together, you have a recipe for some things being unpredictable.

The old Newtonian determinism is rather out of fashion today in science, although there are people struggling to recover it via Hidden Variable theories etc. Einstein famously hated the fall of determinism and felt it must be wrong: "God does not play dice". But the evidence to date is that Einstein was wrong about this.

Personally I have always found it aesthetically pleasing and comforting to feel that we cannot know everything about everything to any desired degree of precision. It feels somehow right that science teaches us a modicum of humility in this respect. And apart from anything else, it seems to leave the door ajar for free will. Though I admit this may be a superficial conclusion on my part.
Your conclusion is in fact the only one that a reasonable person can make. There is no theory of everything to this point. Quantum mechanics and still applicable Newtonian and later concepts along the same lines, e.ǵ. Einsteins two theories of relativity, and others do not mesh, seamlessly. They are observed at their levels, but aren´t interchangeable, or at least cannot be understood at this point as being so. The quantum level is so strange, as has already been stated, I doubt anyone truly understands it. The more I read of quantum mechanics, the less I understand it.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Your conclusion is in fact the only one that a reasonable person can make. There is no theory of everything to this point. Quantum mechanics and still applicable Newtonian and later concepts along the same lines, e.ǵ. Einsteins two theories of relativity, and others do not mesh, seamlessly. They are observed at their levels, but aren´t interchangeable, or at least cannot be understood at this point as being so. The quantum level is so strange, as has already been stated, I doubt anyone truly understands it. The more I read of quantum mechanics, the less I understand it.
Yes I tend to stick to the bits that I know work very well - i.e. those you need to understand chemical bonding and the properties and behaviour of atoms and molecules.


I think the fall of determinism in science, in the c.20th, is a very significant development, though. Also the new primacy placed on the observer by relativity. I suspect both ideas have had quite an impact on human thought, beyond the direct science applications of these theories.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Anyone else find it rather passing strange, that creationists require incredible piles of evidence for evolution?

But are content with exactly zero, with respect to their god-claims?
Actually, God claims are superior to an atheists view of existence. At best, you can say ¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how anything exists. Your position is what I call the sophistry of ignorance. You know nothing, yet purport to be superior to those who know something. Amazing.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Actually, God claims are superior to an atheists view of existence. At best, you can say ¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how anything exists. Your position is what I call the sophistry of ignorance. You know nothing, yet purport to be superior to those who know something. Amazing.
As nobody is talking of "an atheists' view of existence" here, the relevance of your remarks seems doubtful.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Actually, God claims are superior to an atheists view of existence. At best, you can say ¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how anything exists. Your position is what I call the sophistry of ignorance. You know nothing, yet purport to be superior to those who know something. Amazing.

Five thousand years ago a man said¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how lightning exists".
Five thousand years ago a shaman said ¨GodDidIt"

Four thousand years ago a man said¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how our crops are dying".
Four thousand years ago a shaman said ¨GodDidIt"

Six hundred years ago a man said¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how so many people are dying".
Six hundred years ago a shaman said ¨GodDidIt"

GodDidIt has never been the right answer. So, yes, I wallow in my ignorant superiority knowing that science has and will provide knowledge whereas your non-existent god has provided nothing of value.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
God claims are superior to an atheists view of existence

In exactly the same way that leprechaun claims are superior to the aleprechaunist's view of existence.

At best, you can say ¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how anything exists.

What @ecco said immediately above. That is the best that anybody can say honestly, because little more is known. Making up answers is less than acknowledging the limits of current knowledge. Being wrong is less than being correct.

Your position is what I call the sophistry of ignorance. You know nothing, yet purport to be superior to those who know something. Amazing.

And what shall we call the words of a person who claims to have knowledge that he cannot possibly have? Anything (or its polar opposite) can be believed by faith. That doesn't rise to the level of knowledge. As they say, "You don't know it if you can't show it."

Also, Bob didn't pretend to be superior. He pointed out that creationists require endless reams of evidence from scientists (which is generally dismissed out of hand as inadequate), while offering none themselves. You didn't address that point, which still stands unrefuted.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
In exactly the same way that leprechaun claims are superior to the aleprechaunist's view of existence.



What @ecco said immediately above. That is the best that anybody can say honestly, because little more is known. Making up answers is less than acknowledging the limits of current knowledge. Being wrong is less than being correct.



And what shall we call the words of a person who claims to have knowledge that he cannot possibly have? Anything (or its polar opposite) can be believed by faith. That doesn't rise to the level of knowledge. As they say, "You don't know it if you can't show it."

Also, Bob didn't pretend to be superior. He pointed out that creationists require endless reams of evidence from scientists (which is generally dismissed out of hand as inadequate), while offering none themselves. You didn't address that point, which still stands unrefuted.
He specifically mentioned evolution. I am an evolutionist, just not the macro kind. As one trained and educated to evaluate evidence, for me, as the jury for me, macro evolution, does not have sufficient evidence to support it.

As to the accusation ( *I assume about the existence of God or at least so called paranormal activities) that evidence isn't offered, there is a huge plethora of evidence.

However, in the atheist court, it is deemed inadmissable,, and is never considered. If, by the natural dogma if (A) could not occur, then it didn't
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Anyone else find it rather passing strange, that creationists require incredible piles of evidence for evolution?

But are content with exactly zero, with respect to their god-claims?
Oh, but they do have the Bible, which can count as one.

evidence evolution vs creationism.png
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Actually, God claims are superior to an atheists view of existence. At best, you can say ¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how anything exists. Your position is what I call the sophistry of ignorance. You know nothing, yet purport to be superior to those who know something. Amazing.

Projection. Presumptive assumption what I may or may not have claimed.

Nice. I guess you have Telepathy as well as Prognostication and Infinite Knowledge too?

Must be incredible to be inside your head, what with all that ego...

God claims have zero evidence. None. Nada. Nothing. This is why goddites are always trying to spin "faith" as a "virtue" (when it is the opposite).

I make no claims about the beginnings-- but there are lots and lots of Good Ideas-- none of which require factless faith in a Super Wish-Granting Sky Fairy that seemingly appears out of nothing.... !

So. How is having zero evidence superior to ... well... ANYTHING?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Five thousand years ago a man said¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how lightning exists".
Five thousand years ago a shaman said ¨GodDidIt"

Four thousand years ago a man said¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how our crops are dying".
Four thousand years ago a shaman said ¨GodDidIt"

Six hundred years ago a man said¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how so many people are dying".
Six hundred years ago a shaman said ¨GodDidIt"

GodDidIt has never been the right answer. So, yes, I wallow in my ignorant superiority knowing that science has and will provide knowledge whereas your non-existent god has provided nothing of value.
Five thousand years ago a man said¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how lightning exists".
Five thousand years ago a shaman said ¨GodDidIt"

Four thousand years ago a man said¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how our crops are dying".
Four thousand years ago a shaman said ¨GodDidIt"

Six hundred years ago a man said¨I haven´t a clue as to why or how so many people are dying".
Six hundred years ago a shaman said ¨GodDidIt"

GodDidIt has never been the right answer. So, yes, I wallow in my ignorant superiority knowing that science has and will provide knowledge whereas your non-existent god has provided nothing of value.
Well, of course, Christianity has provided much of value. Most of the greatest scientists of history were Christians, and many today are. So, science offers you death and obliteration, ditto for the earth, ditto for the universe. All an infinitesimally small piece of time in infinite time. Thatś OK, if you are comfortable with that, it is fine with me for me.

Science has and is doing marvelous things. Nevertheless, it cannot and will not change those ultimate outcomes.

Now, you state God doesn´t exist. You don´t know that, you can´t know that. That is pure hyperbole based in nothing.

We all will ultimately know for sure, be patient, the time between now and your death will go by very quickly.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Projection. Presumptive assumption what I may or may not have claimed.

Nice. I guess you have Telepathy as well as Prognostication and Infinite Knowledge too?

Must be incredible to be inside your head, what with all that ego...

God claims have zero evidence. None. Nada. Nothing. This is why goddites are always trying to spin "faith" as a "virtue" (when it is the opposite).

I make no claims about the beginnings-- but there are lots and lots of Good Ideas-- none of which require factless faith in a Super Wish-Granting Sky Fairy that seemingly appears out of nothing.... !

So. How is having zero evidence superior to ... well... ANYTHING?
Here is the problem. There is much evidence for God, simply not the kind you will accept. You will accept nothing less than a personal visit to you, with Him putting on a cosmic magic show for you. There is evidence based in philosophy, logic, history, theology, and yes, science. These you won´t accept.
Science is riddled with faith. Life is riddled with faith, you practice it every day in one form or another.

As to your tirade, it is irrelevant to me. You respond like most atheists, it is boorish, but doesn´t bother me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top