Well it seems one only has to speculate about god on this board to trigger irrational and immature responses. Not one of you has given me a reason why this idea is so ridiculous or stupid - all i've got is no, you're wrong, you're an idiot...which is a typical religious response. I forgot the bible was airtight. I forgot you don't need to explain yourselves because you have your faith. Notice that I wrote 'christian god'...not just god. Personally i believe in god - just not a god that conforms to your religious criteria. Anyway I was expecting an intelligent response, with an explanation why my idea is so weak. I expected to be shot down, but I would have liked to know why
2 words to disprove the christian god
- Thread starter Just_Not_There
- Start date
Well, if you attack the "Christian God" simply because he is "christian", you are going to get stupid replies (or rather, replies pointing out the stupidity of your "claim"--which you could have better prepared).
According to the Christian faith, God is all-knowing and all-powerful. This means he can "predict the position and velocity of an electron at the same time". I believe that Randolfo's post said it quite clearly:
Just because it is not humanly possible to do so, does not mean it is impossible for an omniscient being as well.
According to the Christian faith, God is all-knowing and all-powerful. This means he can "predict the position and velocity of an electron at the same time". I believe that Randolfo's post said it quite clearly:
randolfo said:
Just because it is not humanly possible to do so, does not mean it is impossible for an omniscient being as well.
Science doesn't have it in for the christian god, it's my interpretation of it that does. I don't know if it affects the premises for other religious gods, I was simply making a point about the parameters 'set in stone' for the christian god
The point is, not just that we cannot predict - that is it is impossible to predict - that it is against the laws of physics to predict. just saying 'he can' is no argument
Isn't QI based on Heisenberg's uncertainty principel that states that you cannot both determine location and momentum at the same time, it is either one or the other. And this seems to be because the action of observation actually interracts with the objects being observed - i.e. we cannot observe these fundamental particles without affecting them which means we can't really observe them.
But all of that assumes natural processes are involved - a god is part of a supernatual realm where presumably his method of observation would not effect our natural particles. This raises an interesting issue of what exactly would comprise supernatural sight and observation if no natural elements are involved?
But all of that assumes natural processes are involved - a god is part of a supernatual realm where presumably his method of observation would not effect our natural particles. This raises an interesting issue of what exactly would comprise supernatural sight and observation if no natural elements are involved?
Cris - that is a great point.
And I'll get my coat 
Yes it is.Just_Not_There said:
You did read the second paragraph, right?
He raised a new issue.
I have no idea what effect supernatural sight would have, as it is not a physical act of observation, it is more mental (in theory).
"I have no idea" seems to be an ongoing theme for today in the Religion forum.
I agree. i think you put an idea like that firmly in the 'we will never know' category. It's nature suggests it's impossible to work out within the limitations of our physics/laws
Why? Which do you prefer to be leading to a thoughtful and wholesome decision? Is it www.quantonics.com? Or have these two words something to do with your thread ub relationship to quantonics?Just_Not_There said:
You cannot disprove the God/gods unless you are godless.