Thread: God

Chaos theory is not "real" randomness, its simply a measurement problem, it is inherently impossible to measure a chaotic system accurately enough to predict it long term, to do so would require an infinite number of infinitely accurate measurements, however as i said its not "real" randomness, there is no uncertainty in the values themselves merely in our ability to measure them.

Yes, I 100% agree. I brought this up in the origional thread. I also concluded that the measurement is completely physically impossible, regardless of any sort of super new technology in any field of measurement. The reasons for this are the reasons you bring up regarding the act of measuring, altering the data it attempts to collect.

The other point is that the "machine" which is supposed to calculate this is also physically impossible, regardless of any kind of new technology we dont have today (it would have to measure itself which would require an infinite machine). The only point I tried to nail down with that thread, is that there truely is no random elements to the universe. That if this purely theoretical unit could obtain all the data in the universe, without affecting said data, than it could calculate future events without flaw.

My argument is that the universe could not exist if there was any kind of random element to it. If identical actions were not always equal, the results of this at the atomic level would become catastrophic on the larger scale.

In an attempt to bandage my concience at redirecting this thread (despite its repetetetetive and unenlightened nature), I will bring this concept back to the one at hand. I put forward that if there were some "higher being" somehow existing outside of our universe, that any interfearance of this being would be a totally random element. i.e. An action that would not yield an identical result from an identical action. ... I've never seen or heard evidence of this occuring.

"The only point I tried to nail down with that thread, is that there truely is no random elements to the universe. That if this purely theoretical unit could obtain all the data in the universe, without affecting said data, than it could calculate future events without flaw."

Hmm i'm still not in entire agreement, from what i can see there are random elements in quantum systems that are beyond measuring problems and are intrinsic properties of said systems.

All the data in the universe does not include the position and momentum of particles past an accuracy of 2h/pie, the data that would confer that accuracy is more than unmeasureable it simply does not exist.

Its one thing to imagine magically measuring unmeasureable values, its another entirely to measure values that do not exist.

"My argument is that the universe could not exist if there was any kind of random element to it. If identical actions were not always equal, the results of this at the atomic level would become catastrophic on the larger scale"

Identical actions do seem to result in different results with quantum mechanical systems; electron diffraction and radioactive decay to name 2 examples, you could argue that was due to accuracy limits however the random nature is predicted by Q.M, and infact a crucial part of it.

The reason why this doesnt result in catastrophy is because its still bound by probability. Randomness is probably the wrong word, 'uncertainty' fits better.

If you could magically measure all the information that exists in the universe you still wouldnt know enough to predict the future. That was the bombshell that rocked the Newtonian world.

I don't see this random nature as the influence of God (or my invisible kangaroo for that matter), i see it as a another property of the physical world, to be sure its a weird property an unintuitive property, but then thats the same with most of quantum mechanics: The real world is fundamentally different from the world we percieve.

Its tempting to ask where does the randomness come from? But it need not neccesarily come from anywhere, it can be a fundamental property of the universe much a kin to the gravitational field constant, or the charge of a proton.

Now having said that there is still alot left to understand in this area, whilst physicists today do seem to think randomness at a certain level is "real", what is not understood is why measurement has the effect that it does, and it has a fundmental effect: Measurement changes an electron from being a smeared out probability cloud to existing at a point in space (for a given moment in time). Now perhaps when and if we probe deep enough to find those answers, we will find that quantum uncertainty seeps away, personally i wouldn't bet on it, it seems very core to Q.M.

I see why you don't like the idea of real randomness, i didn't either in fact i still don't. Prior to any taught Q.M.s we're all taught to think of science in a classical light, many of Q.Ms. core principles seem deeply deeply wrong, unfortuneately they seem to be true, merely completely at odds with our conceptions of the world.

Feynman has a good quote on this from an introductory lecture he gave to students......... blast cant find it.

All the data in the universe does not include the position and momentum of particles past an accuracy of 2h/pie, the data that would confer that accuracy is more than unmeasureable it simply does not exist.

Now heres where my fuzziness on Q.M. (ahh, thats much nicer than typing Quantum Mechanics all the time), forced me to let the previous thread slide. I find it very difficult to understand why particles wouldn't have an infinitly fixed position. How could a particle not exist in only one static position at any one point. I obviously dont have your background on the subject but it seems only logical (to my mind) that particles _must_ be static. How could we know that it is unmeasureable and not that the act of measurement exerts a change equal to the supposed 'non-existant data', or even (more likely) that the device used to measure is imperfect by this amount?

I'm interested in learning more on the subject but havent found the time. Are you aware of any decent resources out there with links on this sort of thing I could peruse when time permits?

I dont completly understand what you mean when you say "past an accuracy of 2h/pie". Do you mean that the particle has multiple possible values within a set parameter, without actually having a specific value at any given point? Thats paramount to saying that the particle doesnt "exist". At least not in a sense that we could logically manipulate it. ... All very strange.

>Well its good to see you still retaining your sense of humour: Science completely refutes the historical accuracy of the bible, Noahs ark? Please.<

Cyde is obvious you have never even looked at a Bible, because Noahs flood happened in Genesis.

oh the worldwide flood is not unique to the bible it is found in more the 270 stories, and historical records.

For example we have:

"Found in the histories of the Toltec Indians of ancient Mexico is a story of the fist world that lasted 1,716 years and was destroyed by a great flood that covered even the highest mountains. Their story tells of a few men who escaped the destruction in a "toptlipetlocali," which means a closed chest. Following the great flood, these men began to multiply and built a very high "zacuali," or great tower, to provide a safe place if the world were destroyed again. However, the languages became confused, so different language groups wandered to other parts of the world."

1, 716 years thats not to far off from when the bible says the flood happend.

closed chest (an ark?)

Great tower - hmm Tower of Babylon?

languages Confused - odd this happens at Babylon.

wandard to other parts of the world- the Lord scatered them all over the earth.

>You are absolutely right you never mentioned dinosaurs walking with man. This is your exact quote, stating dinosaurs being killed off by the flood - so now you are saying that there were no humans before the flood???<
As I explained before (if you actuly read my post) that the question on dionsaurs was asked of me and I simpley replied to it as a couple of sites sugestest.

>And as for the second point, I'll just shut up now since you'll just take one of the sentences out of 50 that Clyde and I write, say some stupid two word sentence back that means nothing, and act as though thats proof enough.<
1. I've been quite busy and my two scentence post have actuly taken me a couple of hours before I can finish them.
2. I find no need to just retype everything that I find. I've actuly read a good deal of the Bible. (The entire New testament, up to Job, I'm in Psalms now and I read a couple of passages after that.

>Anyways, I'm disregarding anything he says and waiting for Nick or someone else to answer my question(s).<
Didn't I answer it? I said the same think long before Nick did, yet he is right and I am wrong.


>Here (dont dig this up though...)
Sugesting something for you and Cyde?

ok, I'm

>In an attempt to bandage my concience at redirecting this thread (despite its repetetetetive and unenlightened nature), I will bring this concept back to the one at hand. I put forward that if there were some "higher being" somehow existing outside of our universe, that any interfearance of this being would be a totally random element. i.e. An action that would not yield an identical result from an identical action. ... I've never seen or heard evidence of this occuring.<
Why must God constinly interfer with the universe, did he not make it right?

>And you had better provide us a link with what you mean by the hermatica. Because if its what I think it is, I'm VERY sure christianity would deeply disapprove, considering Hermeticism is based off the greek god Hermes, rooted in paganism, and among other things preaches polytheism <---- a big no-no to christians!<

wow, I guess I'm not alone in my thinking. Moses could have easly had known at the very least about the hermetica, he was raised by the king's daughter.

http://www.dnafoundation.com/members...mms/nsmomy.htm

This page more or less says what I think.

>1) Are you saying you believe Greenbergs book or you believe the critic who is very skeptical about it?

I read through the article very quickly and it looked sort of what I was talking about, though upon closer expaction it really is not.

>2) If you believe the book, have you actually read it, and how long ago did you find about it?

No, and I just found the link using google, and as I said read through rather quicly


3) What is the hermetica? Is it a book? The webpage you posted doesn't mention it, and all google searches pull up pages that talk about witchcraft and paganism.<

The hermatica is a collection of around 36 books that writen in anicent eygpt suposidly by Hermes though if he is the real auther that is unknown witch Pre-dates the Bible. It tells the complete creaion of the earth in full detail. From the brief talk I had with my freind I know that there are 6 days in creation just like Genises. Moses would have had access to these books and depending on when Hermes lived he actuly might of known him.

The authorship of the Hermetica is legendary. According to one legend Hermes Trismegistus, who was a grandson of Adam and a builder of the Egyptian pyramids, authored the books. But, more probably the books were written by several succeeding persons . Also, according to legend, the books were initially witten on papyrus.

A chronicler of pagan lore, Clement of Alexandria, stated thirty-six of the Hermetic books contained the entire Egyptian philosophy; four books on astrology; ten books called the Hieratic on law, ten books on sacred rites and observances, two on music, and the rest on writing, cosmography, geography, mathematics and measures and training of priests. Six remaining books concerned medicine and the body discussing diseases, instruments, the eyes and women.

My freind is the one who knows about the Hermatica, my knowledge comes from a short conversation with her.

Note to egyptians: Stop asking my Freind to marry you, she has a boyfreind and is curently not looking for anyone.

-Thank you

" I find it very difficult to understand why particles wouldn't have an infinitly fixed position"

The problem is that the natural way of imagining electrons or protons, etc. is completely false: They are not tiny balls. If they were tiny balls then you would entirely correct they would have fixed positions. But the key is that they really aren't.

What they are is a cross between a tiny ball and a wave, as such we cannot imagine what they "look like", we have nothing in our brains to model them with, because our brains evolved to model objects at about our a size that we deal with in our lifes.

So we can't imagine what electrons look like, what we can do is deduce their properties, and they have both wavelike properties where they act just like a wave, and particle like properties where they act just like a little ball.

Now this is a horrible idea to get your head around because prior to Q.M. the world makes sense, we can picture Newtonian mechanics very happily but with Q.M. we learn that the modelling software in our brains has very real limitations.

However whilst we cannot picture our electron we can make a mathematical model of its behaviour that corellates exeedingly well to experimental observation: Enter the wavefunction.

Using the wavefunction we can draw out probability distrubutions, this gives the probability of finding an electron at any given point in space.

Now remember electrons aren't little balls they are unimaginable wavicles with specific properties, now one of those properties involves the accuracy you can determine (or predict) position and momentum of the electron. I realise as i type this that this is not going to help you, it still sounds sucky and unsatisfactory. But the maths predicts this property: The wavefunction is all the information that exists about an electron, and you can see from the wavefuntion that if you create a scenario where you know its position with 100% accuracy, its momentum simply does not exist at any given value, likewise the reverse is true.

To prove to you that electrons are these wavicle things and not little balls, and that physicists haven't got it totally wrong (which incidently i think everyone who starts learning about Q.M. believes for aleast a portion of time - i certainly did, in fact i was determined to unmask Q.M.......... then you kind of realise that your conclusions are based on your idea of how things "should" work which inturn is based on your experience of the world anmd that the evidence is fairly huge) I'll give you an example of some quantum weirdness:

The easiest example is "particle in a box" the standard starting Q.M. problem:

You have a particle in a small box, if the particle is a small ball it will bounce around the entire box, further more there will be no contraints to how much energy the particle can have and the probability of finding it at a certain place in the box will not alter with how much energy it has.

Now if we go via the Q.M. model we model the electron not as a ball but as a wavefunction, when you do this there are several mathematical constraints to the wavefunction you're allowed to use.

There are several results of this which can be verified experimentally:

1) There is a minimum energy that the particle MUST possess called the zero point energy this corresponds to the lowest allowed wave function.

2) The energy of the particle is quantised ie. it can only have certain values of energy, these correspond to the allowed wavefunctions

3) The probability of finding the particle at a given point in the box varies with its energy; at the zero point energy the particle has the same distrubution as the ball model ie. a sinpieX curve from 0 -> 1 between the two walls of the box. However when you go up to the next energy level this changes to a sin(2pie)X curve from 0 -> 1. If you plot this curve you see that it passes through 0 at X = 0.5. What that means is that the probability of finding the electron in the middle of the box is zero! You can find the electron on one side, and on the other but NEVER in the middle, this is called a nodal place, as you go up energy levels you see more nodal planes indicating positions the particle cannot be in.

"Do you mean that the particle has multiple possible values within a set parameter, without actually having a specific value at any given point?"

Thats pretty much it, the particle exists as multiple different possiblities simultaneously, then when you measure its position it collapses to a given possiblity. So it has a specific value when you measure it or it interacts in another particle like way, but in the next instant it returns to its quantum flux.

"Thats paramount to saying that the particle doesnt "exist". At least not in a sense that we could logically manipulate it. ... All very strange."

Strange indeed, fundamentally at odds with our entire experience of the world. On the other hand we can logically minipulate it in a sense we can map out its properties and model its nature mathematically, we merely cannot picture it in our heads.

I dont have any web pages for you, there may be some good ones out there, unfortuneately with Q.M. its hard to get a decent grasp of the subject without investing quite a bit of time into understanding some of the mathematical concepts involved. There are plenty of popular science physics books that tell you about how things are, but to find out why is a little more taxing. Thats not to say you couldnt do it, i have absolutely no doubt you could but it wouldnt be quick and easy.

I'm well aware that what i'm saying is very poorly explained, keep grilling me on bits im not explaining well enough and ill try to explain them more clearly.

>Anyway, ok then give me an example of part of the bible that has been scientifically verified.<

Sodom and Gomorrah

TLC has had specieals on the Plagues, and isrulties leaving egypt. Want more?

>The idea that a flood could have been so large it covered the highest mountains is just STUPID:

"Found in the histories of the Toltec Indians of ancient Mexico is a story of the fist world that lasted 1,716 years and was destroyed by a great flood that covered even the highest mountains"

Where exactly did all that water go? because i can tell you right now that there is no enough water on Earth to cover the highest mountains. No doubt there was some kind of flood at the time, but it didnt wipe out all live on Earth bar 2 of a select few species.<

Cyde first off the mountians them selves were much lower at the time of the flood, and all the water is still here. PALMS 104 (I belive) tells why everything is not covered anymore.

"TLC has had specieals on the Plagues, and isrulties leaving egypt. Want more?"

I do not doubt that the bible includes accounts of events that did occur though not obviously through God; plagues and volcanoes might well be spectacular but they are not miracles. There are many innacuracies in the biblical dates, as well as in details expressed in the bible, that was my point.

Science does a good job of providing rational explanation for some the events in the bible; the causes for the plagues that hit Egypt being a good example.

Many of the stories are indeed based on actual events, as i said i don't doubt that there was some kind of flood but nothing like what is mentioned in the bible, its simply an innacuracy.

As for your "the mountains were smaller"............ so let me get this straight you think all the mountain ranges were SIGNIFICANTLY smaller 4 thousands years ago? And your evidence for this? Oh wait i know........ the bible.......... excellent, any real evidence? No didn't think so. Everest covered by water 4000 years ago........ bzzzzzzzzt.

Oh heres some "logical and scientific absurdities" in the bible, its also an account from a former christian, you would do well to read bits of this Sentak:

http://www.religionisbull****.com/not_true.htm

- you'll have to replace the stars with the appropriate word.

There are some real gems in there under the absurdities section

>I do not doubt that the bible includes accounts of events that did occur though not obviously through God; plagues and volcanoes might well be spectacular but they are not miracles. There are many innacuracies in the biblical dates, as well as in details expressed in the bible, that was my point.<

First off the miricles that happen in the Bible, are far greater then normal natrual desastories. Second you can not prove that God did not cause them, and nor can I prove it. No one is going to argue the Biblical dates because first off were already off a couple thousand years off. The herbrew callender is probley one of the worst ways, and stores such as the Flood, Lot, ect were handed down by word of mouth.

>As for your "the mountains were smaller"............ so let me get this straight you think all the mountain ranges were SIGNIFICANTLY smaller 4 thousands years ago? And your evidence for this? Oh wait i know........ the bible.......... excellent, any real evidence? No didn't think so. Everest covered by water 4000 years ago........ bzzzzzzzzt.<

I don't feel like arguing the Flood, I don't have any knowledge of the earth's geological structure over time. I gave you the most approprieate answer that I had. I told you already the time for events expectly in Genesis an not be acturitly dated. Oh and Mt Everest was at one time under water.


>Oh heres some "logical and scientific absurdities" in the bible, its also an account from a former christian, you would do well to read bits of this Sentak:

http://www.religionisbull****.com/not_true.htm

- you'll have to replace the stars with the appropriate word.<

I'll take a few and comment on them.

>Genesis 3:14-16 - God curses the serpent, Eve, and Adam for what they have done. (Note: This is inconsistent with God's omniscience; God should have known full well, ahead of time, what the outcome would be. Since God created the three as well as the Tree of Knowledge, he is ultimately responsible for the Fall.) <

He knew one of the leaders of the youth Group I go to even said so. He knew that he would have to have Jesus die for us.


>Genesis 9:12-16 - God first creates the rainbow. (Note: Apparently the laws having to do with refraction of light were null and void prior to this time.) <

Jesus used bread and wine, to represent his body and blood? Did he invent them? No, and just the same God just put a a meaning behind the rainbow.


>JS 10:12-14 God obliges Joshua by making the sun and moon stand still (so that he can finish his battle by daylight). <

There are numerious cultures that have a day in witch the son does not act right.

>1SA 2:8, JB 38:4, PS 104:5 The earth has a foundation and cannot be moved<
Figures of speach.

>1KI 18:33-38 Fire consumes wet wood, stones, and dust, and "licks up" water. <

Odd, I have dried up.

>2CH 7:5, 8-9 Solomon sacrificed 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep in one week. This is 845+ animals per hour, 14+ animals per minute, for seven days straight. <

Only the Priest and Levites could offer sacrifices there the ones that did it not Solomon.

>MT 17:20, 21:21, MK 9:23, 10:27, 11:23, LK 17:6 Faith can move mountains. Nothing is impossible if you have faith [as small as] a grain of mustard seed. <

It refers to the fact that you can over come anything.



>Christians cite the Empty Tomb as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and the truth of Christianity. The truth is, there is good evidence that Jesus survived the Crucifixion and was buried in India. See http://www.tombofjesus.com for more information<


Wow, conspericy theroys abound, is Elvis still alive?

from the fist leter of John:
2:19
Thse people really did not belong to our fellowshipi, and that is why they left us.

I wonder if this refers to Gnosticism?

It is getting late and I still need to go to PJYelton's post.

>Actually I did read your post, I was just dumbfounded (and still am!) as to why in the world when TechWins asked you what *you* believed you would post something that you *don't* believe!<

Notice the word choice. I could of said the Flood killed the dinosaours.

>Ok, if you don't have time, thats fine, I understand a busy schedule. But if you don't have time, then PLEASE don't argue with us. I'm pretty sure I can speak for everyone on this, and if not I'll glady speak just for myself, but we put a lot of time into our arguments, explaining what we mean, why we believe them, and the proof behind them. After all that there is NOTHING more frustrating than to have someone respond with only a couple of words as their argument back.<

I truly love this stuff, (no not trolling) debating. I'm learning a lot on this as I go. My writing I admit is horrible and this is one of my biggest downfalls.


>Its not a matter of right and wrong, but believable and non believeable. Sentaku, I know I've been a jerk to you in many of my posts, and I apologize. But I'm going to try and be a friend for a second. Please figure out your own beliefs, research everything you can about them from every angle, and come to you own conclusions about what is true and not true. Stop forming your beliefs on what other people say without figuring it out for yourself! Most of what you believe you've picked up from creationist propaganda, none of which you really understand. Hell, you're willing to change a MAJOR part of your belief system based solely on a brief discussion with a friend of yours! You haven't read the Hermatica, have researched very little if at all its meaning, and don't know why people believe it or don't believe it. Yet you are ready to say that this is your belief based off a "brief discussion" with your friend? Are you willing to suddenly say that the first 5 chapters of the bible are based on egyptian myths (a pretty major point for those who believe the Hermatica) based on this brief talk? Most christians would seriously disagree with this, are you prepared? Please don't argue these last three questions, since I'm just trying to make a point that you agree to things too fast without researching them.>

Apologize accepted. I never said the first 5 chapters I was only refering to creation of the earth. I'll respect your wishes and not say anything else.

>I refused to listen to your arguments not because I thought you were wrong, but because I can't trust anything you say. Many times you have said far out statements with no backing, have posted on occasion things that later on you say you don't even believe (for example dinosaurs and the flood, or the book review you just posted), said things you don't fully understand, and constantly contradict yourself to the point of utterly confusing the rest of us. So when you post something, how in the world am I supposed to know whether or not you believe it, if its something you just found on another website, if you've only believed it for one day or 10 years, if you know why you believe it, etc? I can't, therefore I'd rather listen to somebody who seems to know more about what he is talking about.<

I know that I have little experence, that is the perpose of links. Second you your self said google did not come up with a good defination for what the hermatica and when I quicly screened over the article it seemed to fit what I was looking for.

Sorry for any problems I might have caused.

>I don't expect you to suddenly agree with what I or anyone else on this thread says about evolution and religion. But I do expect you to go out and research these things on your own, from all angles not just the ones that initially agree with your point, and in the end figure out for yourself what you believe to be true and not true. Not only will we take your arguments and faith more seriously, but you'll have a much stronger faith in what you believe.<

I did search for Evoultion sites, but after a few paragraphs of reading the have lost me. The pages were obvisly created for someone like Cyde and not someone like me.

>Anyways, I hope you take this to heart instead of ignoring it. If so, look me up after you've done as much research as you can and I'll be happy to have a friendly debate (or agreeance depending on which way you go!).<

Cool, I want to research two diffent topics in reallity. 1. Being that more then the Isrulies were following God, and the other is the Hermatica.

Gametaku