₦airaland Forum

MyJoe: That said, I don’t think there is any deists who claim to have answers to the “creator’s complexity”.

Deep Sight knows absolutely EVERYTHING about anything.

Deep Sight: Are you suggesting that if human beings did not exist to conceptualize eternity, then eternity would not exist?

If eternity is, it is. If it isnt, it isnt.

I see nothing in Plaetton's response to suggest otherwise.

The issue is "is there eternity" ?

Is eternity actual or a concept.

That is all.

My own take is that eternity is coterminous with infinity. I have no experience of infinity, except as an abstract concept and as such I am inclined to doubt it.
Of course, the religious such as you will seize on anything that can somewhat explain your farfetched theories.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Is this a suitable statement of the problem of evil for you?
If yes, I'm off to read me some Alvin Platinga (I'll be back eventually though), If no, then you may have to redefine the statement for us.[/quote]That guy is suspect.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I'd like to ask a question for those who have been attacking God on this thread for creating an "imperfect world".
To say that the world is imperfect means that there is a perfect world from which it deviates

Would y'all be so nice as to describe here what a perfect world will look like?
Please describe for us your concept of a perfect world. If it cannot be faulted, you win.

What do y'all say?[/quote]I say I'm not 'god'. I'd know if I was. However, you have part of god (the spirit). Maybe you can tell us.

^^^

Dude !!!

be reasonable nah.

You can ask me to show an example of what I assert.

The question is; what do I assert ?

Call me all the names you want, I wont stoop to your depths. I know it makes you feel smart (operative word being 'feel').

Plus, since you obviously discern a deeper meaning to the quotes I posted, you might want to use them to show my "Osuofiaism".

I await your revelation.


Still, let me say something on the nature of proof.

Naturally, when you say "all things = X", it is reasonable for a layman (like me) to assume that for you to make the above statement, you must have examined all things. Therefore, if he asks you if you have indeed examined all things, you therefore need to assure him positively, or if you can not, you need to show him it is not necessary.

If I make a statement saying "No two days have the same date", I wouldn't ordinarily be offended if someone asked me if I had examined all days. I would honestly answer, "NO".
If he asks me then how I can be sure, then I would explain to him that time as it is experienced, is counted forward and therefore, cannot go back. This ensures that there can never be two same but different days.

My dear boy,
you are out of your depths on this one. You need to bow to superior reasoning. No emotional rants, address the issue. You are generalising. Your best argument is to ask me to prove to you that your beloved cause and effect does not hold true at the quantum scale.
However I havent said whether it holds true or not, I have only asked you to prove that it does.

Make your case.

If I was as superstitious as you, I'd hold you responsible for the unfortunate circumstances I'm grappling with that have prevented me the pleasure of this discourse.

Pastor AIO: And there is no Amala in the bible, so I really wonder about those so called christians that like to wack amala. I really wonder.

Shot Sir. Shot!

brainpulse: @ Frosbel,

I always thought you are a real christian but didnt know you are not one at all, from your responses.

When christians begin to say King james version or other version is incorrect. Know for sure and authoritatively they dont have the indwelling of the holyspirit and does not depend on Him for inspiration and teaching of the wordsGod but they are of the letters and depend solely on human thoughts and logical interpretations.

This I think, is the biggest problem with christianity and one that will never go away.

Both sides are accusing each other of cultism and being fake christians and heretics etc. While there is some form of civility in the exchange at at some time in the past, various cruelties would have been perpetuated over this issue.

Each person uses the bible and the "holy spirit" as his back up. Holy spirit being actually, whatever interpretation resonates with the person.

So who is correct? The trinitarians or the non trinitarians ? Because if both of them are correct (having had separate truths revealed by the "holy spirit" ) it would suggest that there is more than one holy spirit.

That would account for the different doctrines and interpretations emanating from christianity.

Of course if there are several holy spirits, there cant be a "trinity" having exceeded that magic number.

Should be an interesting thread.

Classical and modern physics

The field of physics is commonly subdivided into two large categories: classical and modern physics. The dividing line between these two subdivisions can be drawn in the early 1900s. During that period, a number of revolutionary new concepts about the nature of matter were proposed. Included among these concepts were Einstein's theories of general and special relativity, Planck's concept of the quantum, Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy, and the concept of the equivalence of matter and energy.

In general, classical physics can be said to deal with topics on the macroscopic scale, that is on a scale that can be studied with the largely unaided five human senses. Modern physics, in contrast, concerns the nature and behavior of particles and energy at the submicroscopic level. The term submicroscopic refers to objects—such as atoms and electrons—that are too small to be seen even with the very best microscope. One of the interesting discoveries made in the early 1900s was that the laws of classical physics generally do not hold true at the submicroscopic level.

Perhaps the most startling discovery made during the first two decades of the twentieth century concerned causality. Causality refers to the belief in cause-and-effect; that is, classical physics taught that if A occurs, B is certain to follow. For example, if you know the charge and mass of an electron, you can calculate its position in an atom. This kind of cause-and-effect relationship was long regarded as one of the major pillars of physics.

What physicists learned in the early twentieth century is that nature is not really that predictable. One could no longer be certain that A would always cause B. Instead, physicists began talking about probability, the likelihood that A would cause B. In drawing pictures of atoms, for example, physicists could no longer talk about the path that electrons do take in atoms. Instead, they began to talk about the paths that electrons probably take (with a 95 percent or 90 percent or 80 percent probability).


http://www.scienceclarified.com/Oi-Ph/Physics.html

The Beautiful Fairy Tale of Classical Physics

Today, quantum theory shrouds physics in a mystery scientists are working feverishly to understand. However, before folks began wondering about string theory and the like, physics had enjoyed a relatively calm notion of having figured most things out. In fact, there were six basic assumptions about classical physics that indicated that the greater mysteries of the universe had either been solved or would proceed to be solved presently. These six assumptions about classical physics were historically thought to be absolutely true (contrastingly, today all six assumptions of classical physics have been challenged or proven to be unsupported by recent data). So sit back, relax and learn what a rational and understandable world the six assumptions of classical physics painted once upon a time.

Assumption One of Classical Physics: A Contained System
The first assertion of classical physics was that the universe was like a machine. Following this metaphor, classical physics stated that all movement could be calculated, as it fit with the mechanical nature of the machine as a whole. This assumption is like saying that because a pocket watch follows absolute rules, all of its inner parts will as well.

Assumption Two of Classical Physics: Cause and Effect
Classical physics also insisted that, because of Newtonian ideas, all motion had a cause. Furthermore, because classical physics made the first assumption that the universe was like a machine, the second assumption of classical physics also dictated that all of these causes could be calculated. Very quickly we can see that classical physics and it's assumptions believed even the most complex behavior could be understood easily.

Assumption Three of Classical Physics: Determinism
Determinism is the belief that all action is the result of previous causes that can be measured and understood. In philosophy, determinism means that a person cannot practice free will; everyone is merely the sum of previous causes, and that someone's fate trails back to occurrences, all the way to his genetics and environment, which predicted his inevitable behavior. The view of determinism is much the same in classical physics, this third assumption merely asserting that if a body's state of motion was known at any juncture, that body's motion can be calculated for any other period of time, past or future. This makes sense in light of the former two assumptions. If classical physics declared that all movement's cause and effect could be measured, there was no reason to believe intervals between the initial cause and eventual effect could not also be known.

Assumption Four of Classical Physics: Maxwell's Electromagnetic Wave Theory
The fourth assumption of classical physics was that Maxwell's Electromagnetic Wave Theory completely explained the behaviors and properties of light and that there was nothing further to discover in that respect. While this must have been very flattering to Maxwell, this is nevertheless not an absolute assumption today.

Assumption Five of Classical Physics: Energy in Motion
The fifth assumption of classical physics was that types of energy were mutually exclusive and could either be a particle or a wave. This assumption fit very neatly into the predictable world of classical physics.

Assumption Six of Classical Physics: Degrees of Accuracy
Perhaps one of the most laughable assumptions of classical physics made perfect sense at the time. Not only did classical physics dictate that anything could be measured, the sixth and final assumption was that anything could be calculated to any degree of accuracy, were the equipment advanced enough. Recall that during the time of classical physics, physicists were learning about atomic systems. Obviously, classical physics did not yet know enough about atomic systems, as they too were thought to follow the sixth assumption describing absolute accuracy. If only!


WORKS CITED
McEvoy, J. P., Oscar Zarate, and Richard Appignanesi. Introducing Quantum Theory: [a Graphic Guide]. London: Icon, 2009. Print.

http://voices.yahoo.com/the-6-assumptions-classical-physics-10255985.html?cat=4

Max Planck’s Quantum Physics

Quantum physics arose out of classical physics in an effort to answer questions about atoms and subatomic particles that classical physics could not handle satisfactorily. That is, the laws of classical physics predicted that experiments with atoms and subatomic particles should produce certain results. However, the experiments turned out differently. Quantum physics is that body of knowledge that grew out of the best intellectual efforts to make sense of these strange results.

Quantum Mechanics, Theory, and Physics

Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics that studies the behavior of atoms and subatomic particles. It describes the nature of atoms and their building blocks, the subatomic particles—electrons, protons, and neutrons.

Quantum physics (or quantum mechanics) has been defined as the theory of the behavior of matter and energy, particularly at the level of atoms and subatomic particles, as the theory developed from Planck’s quantum principle and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, as a physical theory based on the idea of the quantum (a discrete amount) and quantum jumps (a discontinuous transition)—first discovered in connection with atomic objects, and as the framework of laws governing the universe whose unfamiliar features such as uncertainty, quantum fluctuations, and wave-particle duality become most apparent on the ultramicroscopic scales of atoms and subnuclear particles.

By the end of the 1920′s, physicists had developed a largely theoretical body of thought or quantum theory to explain a number of observed oddities in the behavior of subatomic particles. According to quantum theory, reality at the quantum level does not exist separately from or independently of human observation—reality comes into existence only when it is observed or measured by the human mind. The orthodox interpretation of quantum theory states that there is no deeper level of reality than that studied by quantum physics. However, many quantum physicists disagree concerning this ‘orthodox’ interpretation of quantum physics.

According to physicist David Bohm (1917-1992), quantum theory has four primary features:

The first feature is the indivisibility of the quantum action. In classical physics, when something moves from one state of being (position, etc.), there is a continuous series of intermediate states between the initial state and the final state. But when a quantum particle moves from an initial state to a final state, there are no intermediate states. The movement is said to be discontinuous. The quantum particle vanishes from one location and instantly reappears in another. This action is referred to as a quantum jump.

The second feature is the wave-particle duality properties of quantum particles. Subatomic particles, such as electrons, can show different properties (e.g., particle-like, wave-like, or something in between), depending on the environmental context within which they exist and are subject to observation. Under some conditions they behave like waves, while under other conditions they behave like particles. Yet, they are always both waves and particles. This paradox is the complementary principle mentioned above.

The third feature is that the laws of quantum mechanics are statistical and do not determine individual future events uniquely and precisely. The properties of matter are revealed in terms of statistical potentialities. That is, at the quantum level, every physical situation is characterized by a quantum wave function. This quantum wave function is not directly related to the actual properties of an individual object, event, or process. Instead, it is a sum of probability curves. Each curve gives the probability or likelihood that a particular object, event, or process will occur. Each of these potential situations are mutually incompatible; i.e., only one can manifest or be actualized. There is no way to determine which one will manifest; there are only probabilities associated with each possible outcome.

The fourth feature of quantum physics is what is referred to as non-causal correlations. Two particles, such as electrons, which were initially part of a quantum system, when separated, show a peculiar non-local relationship, which can best be described as a non-causal connection, no matter how far apart they are (as demonstrated in the experiment of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen). That is, when two or more quantum particles have been associated with each other and are subsequently separated by time and/or space, whatever happens to one of the quantum particles is instantaneously reflected in the other quantum particle. According to Einstein’s theories of relativity, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. However, no matter how distant in time/or space two or more correlated (related, associated) particles are, there exists some form of instantaneous information sharing among them. Because this sharing is instantaneous, it takes place faster than the speed of light. Physicists disagree as to how this information sharing occurs.

http://epages./2012/02/11/physics-classic-and-quantum/

Of course, with a wave of the hand, you will pronounce this to be "voodoo" .

Sorry mate, but you have failed to prove your point. I havent asserted anything, Ive only questioned you. You are only playing to the gallery with this stage performance.

Prove your point with specifics, not generalities. Your challenge is of no use either way because it is your assertion that is in contention not mine. Sadly, you persist with the fallacies. You need to do better than this.

I have addressed all your other "questions" at one point or the other.
Now, whether you find them satisfactory or not is another issue. Your issue of fingerprints is a non starter. You should rest it. I have also addressed your question on planets and gravitational pull. In addition, I have clearly defined these two; the compositional fallacy and the argument from ignorance and I have shown you how they apply to the arguments you are making.

What more do you want ?

Deep Sight: Nah mate. Not even a scratch. But I leave it to readers to arrive at their conclusions.

I did. That its not acceptable to you doesnt mean anything but that.


Ah, I see your edit.

I did not run away from nothing. The position is really simple. You want to force issues but you must play by rules. If you do, I will engage you.

Deep Sight: Set out extensively already. Can't repeat myself.

But I addressed them didnt I ?

At the very least, today, I dismissed of the fingerprint example in relation to the compositional fallacy.

No you didnt. If you did, point me to where you did.

The reason I am asking you to set them out is because I cannot be bothered with assuming what your arguments are. Anyone can make statements, but it is the reasoning behind such statements that is important.

Eg consider the statement; "My cat is black".

That statement is either true or false. It is not fallacious. If you dispute this and ask how I know my cat is black, suppose I reply, "It is black because it is not yellow", thats fallacious reasoning. In other words, the premise does not support the conclusion.

This does nothing to affect the truth of the statement because while the reasoning is faulty, my cat may in fact be black.

However, from my reasoning, you have good grounds for suspending belief in my statement.

That is why I ask you to set out your arguments. I cant do much with mere statements.

You need to set out the arguments. I wouldnt want to be a meddlesome interloper.

Nope. You cannot ask me if a statement is a fallacy. That is wrong. I didnt write the rules.

Oh no.
They are statements and that is all. Its not a cop out, it is cold logic. A statement is not an argument.

Deep Sight: ^^^ Can you just answer the specific questions I put to you in Yes or no terms - or is that impossible?

If impossible, why?

But I did didnt I ?

Look at my response. Its embedded.

Briefly, one can not answer yes or no to those questions because a statement itself is either true or false. Those are all statements. Fallacies come in by virtue of reasoning. In other words your reasons for making those statements. Not unless you go about making statements and expecting people to take them at face value.

What an emotional tirade.

You seem not to understand the argument from ignorance or compositional fallacy.

Your finger print is a bad analogy to use to demonstrate the compositional fallacy simply because fingerprints do not add up to form anything.

Stating that all fingerprints are unique will not of itself be an argument from ignorance. It becomes an argument from ignorance when you state that it must be so if one cannot prove the opposite. Elementary my dear Watson.

All human fingerprints are unique, is a statement. Whether it is an assumption or not will depend on the facts behind the statement.

And yes, I knew you'd stumble over the "reasonable" man test. Its an inside joke but you dont seem to understand it. Allow me to sort you out.
Anyone, can make a general statement, a statement that accords with our common experience. In fact, you are on safe ground there, walking the path of least resistance. However, just because we dont know that X is there, it doesnt mean X is not there. Likewise, just because we dont know X is, doesnt mean X isnt.

Sometimes, in matters like this, you undertake to exhaust every alternate possibility to show that yours must necessarily be correct. If you fail to consider any other possibility and deal with it, then you leave yourself open.

Now, this is not a gamble where you bet with or against the odds. Using the finger print examples, they play the odds of any two finger prints being the same (even finger prints from the same finger).

This is an "either, or" matter (at least for now). All, you have done is to superimpose your common experience; the same experience that would tell your kind of "reasonable man" that what is thrown up will always come down. No, you must look beyond common experience to discover the truth. And if common experience holds true, so be it. All you are doing is spewing generalities. What you missed is DETAIL. Detail, not generalities. All your talk about cause and effect is diversionary. Scope is important. Stop using red herrings to distract from the core of matter.

Any amateur can sit down in his backyard and say "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" and deem himself a great philosopher. However, people that make it their life to research and study these things have realized that reality does not have to conform to our expectations or common experience.

I have asked you to prove and what you adduce as evidence (classical physics) is widely acknowledged to have little or no application at the singularity which I believe you accept. Instead, you ask me for a counter example when I have not said there is one. You even volunteered one yourself but have so far failed to explain the cause.

Your "proof" is as of yet unsatisfactory. That is the truth though you may not like it.

You seek to evade core science by means of quaint philosophical devices and the regular ad hominem.

Word of advice, a wise man does not speak in absolutes unless he is absolutely sure. Enough with the 10kobo philosophy.

PS
Oh, and speaking of foreknowledge, before the Darwins Day thread, I knew your position (and said so). Theres nothing special in that.

And finally, on the issue of burden of proof, well I'm surprised you still say this.

If you say all fingerprints are unique, you make a claim. Anyone is within their rights to ask how you know this. Your response should be to set out in detail how you acquired this knowledge in such a way that it becomes plain to the reasonable man. If your explanation is sufficient, then the matter should be settled. In fact, your response may not be a hundred percent satisfactory but it may enough to accept "generally".

You dont prove your point by asking your opponent to prove the opposite or to disprove your point. If you make a highly specific assertion, you must back it up with like proof, and not generalities or fallacious arguments.

Are fingerprints really infallible, unique ID?

How unique are your fingerprints? It's general held (and as er, The Register confidently stated just yesterday) that your fingerprints being found at the scene of the crime tied you up with it pretty conclusively, but a report published earlier this year by New Scientist claims that there is little scientific basis for the infallibility of fingerprints, and that the only research indicating that there is, is fatally flawed.

This could have major implications for the criminal justice system, and could undermine the basic premise of planned ID sytems in the UK, US and Europe. The report notes that the only known study, commissioned b y the US Department of Justice and only made public in summary form, was challenged in December. The study involved matching up 50,000 fingerprint images, and concluded from this that the probability of a false match was effectively zero. However, says New Scientist, "Although this produced an impressive-sounding 2.5 billion comparisons, critics point out that it is hardly surprising that a specific image should turn out to be more like itself than 49,999 other images."

The study wasn't designed to test matches between two or more different prints from the same finger, and it was even discovered that it originally included three instances of fingerprints being listed as similar but different, when they were actually different prints from the same finger. One pair was even found to be as dissimilar as prints from different people. And the sample size is seen by many critics as being too small to be seen as valid.

Despite the apparently shaky foundations of the little 'proof' that exists, there seems to be no government enthusiasm for further research. The DoJ has refused to sanction further research, and a Department of Defense and National Institute of Justice programme fell apart last year after arguments over dissemination and review of the material.

New Scientist points out that fingerprint evidence still has a value, but that it's such a long-standing technique that it has never been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny. This could well be its undoing, as ID systems' need to match up prints from millions of people takes fingerprinting into entirely uncharted territory. It would surely be just a little bit embarrassing if a few years down the line governments' deployment of fingerprints in the war on terror resulted in the near overthrow of the criminal justice system, wouldn't it? ®

www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/06/identity/

A distraction, but maybe you will get the hint.

Deep Sight,

You have put paid to nothing.

Its shocking how simple things such as this evade your grasp.

Using finger prints as an example does not touch on the compositional fallacy.

Whenever, you infer the whole from the parts, you commit a compositional fallacy. Simple ! Why do I need to repeat this to you ad infinitum ?

I shouldnt need to tell you this but apparently everything must be simplified for you. Here goes: A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT IS NOT NECESSARILY AN INCORRECT ARGUMENT. It does however beg for better construction.

As an example, if I pile 12,000 bricks on top of each other and call it "the 12 brick", and an observer pulls out a few bricks and state that the entire structure is made from bricks, he would be correct. That would not stop it from suffering from the compositional fallacy, as he is infering the whole from the part.

Quite often, fallacious arguments are deeply flawed, but not always. Is this clear enough for you ?

Now, if you say everything you observe in your local experience obeys the law of "cause and effect", and then on the basis of that, you give your experience universal scope, you are committing the fallacy of composition. Your position may or may not be correct, but it is certainly unconvincing when couched in those terms.

Next, I ask you how you know this and you turn round to ask me how I know it isnt (when I havent said it isnt). When you ask someone to accept a proposition simply because the opposite is not known or proven, you are arguing from ignorance.

This is basic Deep Sight, dont make me have to explain this again to you. You must learn how to argue.

And on to the cat with 5 legs, that is unusual, but not impossible. A bad example you must agree.

From ones experience it is enough to say cats have four legs ( as a general statement ) but not cats have only four legs (as an exclusive statement). The only way the exclusive statement will work is when cats are defined with four legs inclusive and being a necessary component of that definition, and as such anything more or less than four legs will exclude the specie in question from being a cat.

This is what happens when you try to prove god with logic. You blunder fluently and refuse to correct yourself.

Deep Sight: It is worse because th "Quantum Physics", which is the new beautiful bride is anything but confirmed or understood as yet, and it in fact presents many illogicalities so far - as advanced by many current physicists. There is just no way it is time yet to begin to discard well known laws (e.g: material cause and effect) in favour of imaginary Quantum voodoo. Not there yet.

I beg to disagree with the coloured. Quantum Physics is verified.

Quantum mechanics is the body of scientific principles that explains the behavior of matter and its interactions with energy on the scale of atoms and atomic particles.

Classical physics explains matter and energy at the macroscopic level of the scale familiar to human experience, including the behavior of astronomical bodies. It remains the key to measurement for much of modern science and technology; but at the end of the 19th Century observers discovered phenomena in both the large (macro) and the small (micro) worlds that classical physics could not explain. Coming to terms with these limitations led to the development of quantum mechanics, a major revolution in physics.

Some aspects of quantum mechanics can seem counter-intuitive, because they describe behavior quite different than that seen at larger length scales, where classical physics is an excellent approximation. In the words of Richard Feynman, quantum mechanics deals with "nature as She is — absurd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics

Quantum mechanics (QM – also known as quantum physics, or quantum theory) is a branch of physics dealing with physical phenomena at microscopic scales, where the action is on the order of the Planck constant. Quantum mechanics departs from classical mechanics primarily at the quantum realm of atomic and subatomic length scales. QM provides a mathematical description of much of the dual particle-like and wave-like behavior and interactions of energy and matter.


Quantum mechanics and classical physics

Predictions of quantum mechanics have been verified experimentally to an extremely high degree of accuracy. According to the correspondence principle between classical and quantum mechanics, all objects obey the laws of quantum mechanics , and classical mechanics is just an approximation for large systems of objects (or a statistical quantum mechanics of a large collection of particles). The laws of classical mechanics thus follow from the laws of quantum mechanics as a statistical average at the limit of large systems or large quantum numbers

Since its inception, the many counter-intuitive aspects and results of quantum mechanics have provoked strong philosophical debates and many interpretations.

The Copenhagen interpretation - due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr - remains the quantum mechanical formalism that is currently most widely accepted amongst physicists, some 75 years after its enunciation. According to this interpretation, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is not a temporary feature which will eventually be replaced by a deterministic theory, but instead must be considered a final renunciation of the classical idea of "causality". It is also believed therein that any well-defined application of the quantum mechanical formalism must always make reference to the experimental arrangement, due to the complementarity nature of evidence obtained under different experimental situations.

Albert Einstein, himself one of the founders of quantum theory, disliked this loss of determinism in measurement. Einstein held that there should be a local hidden variable theory underlying quantum mechanics and, consequently, that the present theory was incomplete. He produced a series of objections to the theory, the most famous of which has become known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. John Bell showed that this "EPR" paradox led to experimentally testable differences between quantum mechanics and local realistic theories. Experiments have been performed confirming the accuracy of quantum mechanics, thereby demonstrating that the physical world cannot be described by any local realistic theory. The Bohr-Einstein debates provide a vibrant critique of the Copenhagen Interpretation from an epistemological point of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Philosophical_implications

The Copenhagen interpretation is an attempt to explain the mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics and the corresponding experimental results. Early twentieth-century experiments on the physics of very small-scale phenomena led to the discovery of phenomena which could not be predicted on the basis of classical physics, and to the development of new models (theories) that described and predicted very accurately these micro-scale phenomena. These models could not easily be reconciled with the way objects are observed to behave on the macro scale of everyday life. The predictions they offered often appeared counter-intuitive and caused much consternation among the physicists—often including their discoverers.

Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability functions into non-probabilistic measurements. Einstein's comments "I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice." and "Do you really think the moon isn't there if you aren't looking at it?" exemplify this. Bohr, in response, said "Einstein, don't tell God what to do"

Steven Weinberg in "Einstein's Mistakes", Physics Today, November 2005, page 31, said:

All this familiar story is true, but it leaves out an irony. Bohr's version of quantum mechanics was deeply flawed, but not for the reason Einstein thought. The Copenhagen interpretation describes what happens when an observer makes a measurement, but the observer and the act of measurement are themselves treated classically. This is surely wrong: Physicists and their apparatus must be governed by the same quantum mechanical rules that govern everything else in the universe. But these rules are expressed in terms of a wave function (or, more precisely, a state vector) that evolves in a perfectly deterministic way. So where do the probabilistic rules of the Copenhagen interpretation come from? Considerable progress has been made in recent years toward the resolution of the problem, which I cannot go into here. It is enough to say that neither Bohr nor Einstein had focused on the real problem with quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen rules clearly work, so they have to be accepted. But this leaves the task of explaining them by applying the deterministic equation for the evolution of the wave function, the Schrödinger equation, to observers and their apparatus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Interpretation

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Yes, but you miss out the part that tells us that after God made everything, He saw it was Good.
You miss the part where somewhere along the line, the lucifer and some angels became evil.
This does not stop God from using them The same way when God uses sinful man, it doesn't automatically mean that God made the man evil.[/quote]Yeah, the fall of man and all that jazz.

Its ok. I dont want a drawn out argument, I just remembered that verse and though, I dont agree with you, its clear you will stick to your guns. No need for a stalemate.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The question is: Did God make the spirit evil?[/quote]Well, it said "from the lord."
What are we to make of that ?

EDIT:
Plus god made all things (supposedly).

mazaje: Another lie. . .Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol, I hope you do realize that the evil we are discussing here is moral evil. The evil described in Isaiah on the other hand is not moral evil but physical calamity and natural disaster.[/quote]Might not apply, but I remembered this verse

1 Samuel 16
14 But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.

Like I said, the main thing is the difference in the scales. There is said to be an underlying harmony between the two (if I read right).

Deep Sight: I should also say how sad I find it that some people imagine that "Newtonian" is now a term for archaic or false or disproved laws or science.

And this, when the Quantum Physics in question is and remains, so far, at best sketchy speculation around ill-understood precepts.

No, Newtonian is physics on one scale and quantum physics is on another scale.

Martian: Yes, it's only two but I think the neccesitarian view contributes to some people's opinion about the "neccessity" of things happening in certain ways .

Interesting. The whole "laws of nature" issue persuades some to insist that there must be a "law giver".

Leads to some pretty flawed reasoning.

Nice read Martian, though the article only differentiates between two schools of thought.

TeekayAkin: Somehow the rat in the lab assumes it's equal to the scientists simply because they are in the same lab room!

How insane!!! WAKE UP!!!"- Teekay Akin FreedomMovementVoice

Ever read the Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe?

Martian, I see you and will consider your post later.

Deep Sight: As regards Cause and effect, I honestly don't know where to start with you. Everything you have written about solid water speaks NOTHING. Solid water will be caused under a variety of causes. Cold could be one, pressure could be another, there could be others. All of these simply disclose causes and causality for phenomena.

Oh yeah. As a sophist, it may speak nothing. Be aware though that I sought to show disparity with the norm.

(By the way, I might as well make a caveat:

Im not in the habit of announcing my intake of strong waters, but even I saw the evidence in my last posts. I borrow a leaf from my mentor Deep Sight and hic . . . my way through this.

NOTE to Deep Sight:
thou shalt surely burn to cinders for this . . hic . )

It just beats me silly that anyone can dare to question causality in material phenomena. It is the most ridiculous notion ever: far more ridiculous than any religious supposition: and as far as I am concerned it emanates from a pathetic desire to ape scientific Joneses. A desire to seem to be on the side of modern nonsensicalities.

No friend, its apt. Until you have seen a universe begin. And even after that. . .

As far as scientific Jones' are concerned, I dont need 'em. Whichever way science swings, I rely on me. I'm cocky like that. At the very least, I take excessive pride in my deep humility .

Cause and effect is far too intrinsic to reality for the sort of notions you have been bandying about to be taken seriously. Sometimes I wonder if you really understand the implications of what you are advancing. That things may just exist - - - > magically, without cause - when these things are material finite things. I honestly cannot see how u want me to argue against such nonsense. I sit back and wonder if you are really contemplating what you are saying carefully.

I advance nothing. I ask simple questions.

How do you know that your beloved cause and effect is of UNIVERSAL application. How do you know that it applies where physicists agree that it shouldnt ?

Overall: this statement: you are yet to contemplate: "Anything that BEGINS to exist has a cause".

My friend; something that begins must be triggered. This is so obvious i actually feel sick having to say it.

Enjoy.

Its obvious to you, because your mind is limited. Not to me. I have contemplated the statement before our first headlock, and it does not ring true as of yet.
Open your mind.

Jenwitemi: Mr Anony probably will. After all, the order will be coming from the highest "moral" authority.

Funny, immediately I saw this topic, one name crossed my mind. Mr Anony.

Dont bother asking him, his answer I predict if he is bold enough to answer it will be the same as the below.

Tenderly1: my God won't ask me 2 do such a thing.