Good work explaining Doc

Whether our great and mighty, all knowing skynet accepts it ... remains to be seen.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

Give this a look see

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978), 116

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

Oi... I already stated that Feynman acknowledges that Heisenberg was close, but a bit off. I actually had to dig out my notes for the figures, but Feynman found a better way to actually calculate much more precisely, as I had explained before. He indeed took it a step further - earned a Nobel Prize for it, along with a few others he worked with. I don't need additional explanations, as I understand, but I appreciate your effort.

Take this example... an electron in an magnetic field moves at a certain rate and there must be interferences such as electricity and light which are taken into account when doing the calculations (the uncertainty). Dirac and Heisenberg came up with 1.00118 +- 3 (or something to that effect). However, there was a slight err in how they calculated it. Later on, it was refined to 1.00115965241+-2. The results were from Feynman and his team. The equation is too lengthy to type here.

I was also talking mainly about the uncertainty principle not affecting the grand scheme of quantum theory, which is absolutely correct, since the measurements are astoundingly accurate within themselves. Thus, the measurement isn't REALLY all that uncertain, due to its accuracy. That is what he meant, as I explained before. If you want to know just how accurate Feynman is, it is like you standing on a planet and I measure your distance to Earth. I would only be off by literally millimeters of an inch - or something close to.

I don't believe that you think that I know what I was talking about... =\ Perhaps I do not explain myself clear enough.

__________________
"Today a [wo]man... tomorrow a worm...and the day after - a fly!" - Marquis de Sade

Isn't this suggesting something that is not supposed be in your "viewpoint"- being certain of an answer? Christianity isn't the only theology and that guy wasn't a Christian.

__________________
"Today a [wo]man... tomorrow a worm...and the day after - a fly!" - Marquis de Sade

I hate to jump back in after so many pages, but here goes.

It's BS in that you make absolute statements about theoretical ideas. You even go beyond theory, you invent unknowns, state them as fact, and then attempt to create an actual "scientific" theory out of whole cloth.

How does an "infinite regression of energy" contrast the belief in God?
Substitute the word God, for energy, and viola! Again, how is that any less plausible, or credible then your mass speculation on a cosmic level? Pun fully intended.

__________________
Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent.

Lemme guess - you read some Feynman?

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

I'll say that I applaud your interest in the subject and leave it at that.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

You see, this is the problem with allowing ones ego to become an oversized monster. You pay almost no attention to what is said by others, which usually leads false conclusions centered around the idea that others are generally not intelligent enough to pay careful or close attention to.

Really ? You sure ?

And so what if he wasn't/isn't ?

As usual, your galaxy sized ego made you completely miss the point.

Allow me to present you with another short bit of writing. Only because I'm morbidly fascinated by what you might make of it :


Greater knowledge always means greater power. Thus, whether this be their intention or not, the 'knowers' in any society bequeath to their culture ever-new powers to transform its life. It is for this reason that knowers, religious or scientific, are valued as well as revered by their society, the priest's robes and the scientist's white coat signify much the same social role as the knower of significant secrets and so the doer of all-important deeds ... As religion had dominated the civilization of the medieval period, so science has dominated ours. It has determined or shaped education, molded our sense of human excellence, grounded our hopes for the future, and established itself as the queen of all other disciples of learning.

Langdon Gilkey, Society and the Sacred: Toward a Theology of Culture in Decline (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 76, 78.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

Greetings and Felicitations,

The difference being that science is based upon reality and religion is based upon wishful thinking. Science wants to know and religion says it already does.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

Precisely. In order for a theory to be deemed a universal truth, there must be objective reality, human imagination and the math/physical evidence to support it via Scientific Method/assays. Religion only possesses one piece of that pie - human imagination. The agenda of science is to learn and work with what we DO know, while religion professes that it knows everything without any plausible evidence whatsoever. What really seems like the more believable process in determination? I mean come on now...

__________________
"Today a [wo]man... tomorrow a worm...and the day after - a fly!" - Marquis de Sade

As if it wasn't already obvious that you know almost nothing about this "religion" thing that you like laugh off and dismiss as foolish

Study your science, it's obvious you need more work there. Since you currently seem to be in love with science, stay with it.

Later, if your interests change, learn something more about religion. If they do not, stay with discussing science issues since you're obviously completely in the dark about religion.

Have a great time

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

Oh, I know quite a bit about both, and her statement is pretty much dead on, while it's pretty clear that you are a perfect exemplar of what she's talking about.

Sorry that makes you so uncomfy, Cap.

Speak for yourself, sir. I haven't seen you acknowledge one thing except argue semantics because that's all you seem to have the capacity for.

You only think I have a problematic ego because I reject the possibility of God. Another influence of society. Jesus you guys are like sheeple. You can call me egotistical or arrogant, but it doesn't change the fact that I am my own God, which means I possess confidence, self-blame and ambition. I control my own life. There is no reason as to why we are here. We give ourselves the reason. I honestly can't think of a more enlightened way to live.

Laugh all you want. The joke is on you, sir. Science is much closer to our origins than religion will ever be. "How, Skynet?" you ask. Well, I explained this before. Science is the opposite of religion. Religion's agenda (such as Christianity, which is over two-thousand years old) is to control and explain how things work in a primitive way. This makes their scriptures and teachings weak. Faith does not mean "correct". Science is about working with actual, physical properties in order to find out what is true. It's agenda is NOT to control, but to grow and change and debunk other theories. The concept of God has only recently changed with the introduction of agnosticism. However, agnosticism is still derived from religion in the sense that there could be a God, but there also there may not be. We cannot seem to shake this "God" concept in any fashion, since it has been a part of our society for so long.

Because if you have read anything regarding deism/theism, you would know that there are some who believe in a first efficient cause, such as St. Thomas Aquinas (Thomism). It's a concept explaining one omnipotent "thing" or being who created everything. The opposite of a finite progression is an infinite regression. Meaning, there was no one, sole creator, since everything begs for a creator in our own psyche. That leaves us an infinite amount of creators to have created it, therefore no one being existed before our universe which means there is no one God that started it all. Got it?

Secondly, I actually already stated that we can argue about what we don't know, but I firmly believe that it wasn't a God, since a God is 100% conceptual and a societal influence. Science is working toward physically proving how our universe began. We work with what we know, unlike everyone else who just states "we don't know at all". It's counter-productive. Even Feynman hated when people asked him all the time what they don't know yet, because they hardly asked him what they DO know. I am perfectly comfortable with uncertainty, but I am not comfortable with something which holds no place in science and physics.

You cannot substitute. If it's energy, it's energy!! Why bother calling it a God? That's just silly and a lame cop-out in order to keep your establishment from being dismantled. This is actually why I can't stand certain Agnostics.

__________________
"Today a [wo]man... tomorrow a worm...and the day after - a fly!" - Marquis de Sade

I've studied philosophy and the concepts of deism and theism. I know a lot more than you. I would like you to provide me some hardcore evidence that religion is scientific and not 100% speculative. Good luck.

Edit: PLEASE refrain from Creationist garbage concerning macrobiology and microbiology. It's just silly.

__________________
"Today a [wo]man... tomorrow a worm...and the day after - a fly!" - Marquis de Sade

hun its about as plausible as an entire universe originating from one particle of energy/matter that you STILL can't explain the origins of.

Theyre both about equal on the take it on faith scale.