[Basilissa]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

IMHO, you are incorrect in assuming that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the correct one. As prof. Einstein has stated, the correct interpretation of QM is the ensemble interpretation. (pseudo-scientific drivel removed for brevity)

Honey, if you want to discuss science, then please at least attempt to do it right. Here (again) are some helpful instructions which you should have been following already:

Again, it is dangerous to play the game of the atheists on their own field. Your post above consists of testimonials, which is a valid way to prove the existence of Jesus (and all that we have in the form of the Gospels) but in the field of secular science it is pitifully inadequate. A quotation of a professor is simply an appeal to authority, again a valid argument when we refer to the Bible but an inappropriate fallacy as a naturalistic conclusion. It's the data that matter, not someone's opinion on it! Please, refrain from quoting Einstein with quantum mechanics, as he really did his work long before particle physics shed any light on it. Any secular physicist will tell you this, and I'm only trying to protect you! Whatever a person says about the incomprehensibility of quantum physics is just an assertion and the point is to discuss what the actual data say.

It is even more dangerous to use unknown authorities (again, within secular logic it is a fallacy) with the "many scientists". We of all people should know that the majority is not necessarily correct,

And yet you continue to commit the same logical fallacies again!

IMHO, quantum entanglement has also been interpreted incorrectly. I'll need more time to show why. Regardless of whether or not some of Einstein's ideas about QM have been disputed, the fact remains that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has also been disputed and that many people today adhere to a version of the ensemble interpretation which is free of any contradictions.

Thank you for making scientists look like erratic incoherent people who are driven by biased opinions rather than objective data. That's our opinion about them, too!

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

IMHO, quantum entanglement has also been interpreted incorrectly. I'll need more time to show why. Regardless of whether or not some of Einstein's ideas about QM have been disputed, the fact remains that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has also been disputed and that many people today adhere to a version of the ensemble interpretation which is free of any contradictions.

Please...
1. Be informed that "many people" is not an authority (as I state above) but a fallacy.
2. Asses the issue of Catholicism accepting atheist Salvation and evolutionary theory with its problems with theodicy and how the cosmological ideas of atheists are just a tiny bit away from those issues.
3. Do not hide behind the smoke screen of the philosophical dimensions of Q physics, when the actual issue is that following methodological naturalism leads, really, to the God of Gaps. The theory of QP is just an example. It is not the actual issue. If you are complacent with the idea that "we need something that originated the Jocaxian nothingness" then the path to the Living God that is Jesus and present and an active participant in Earth History is more or less lost and what would be the point of Christianity any more?
4, Please, inform us about your position regarding the Bible as a reliable source of historical events including Creation (Genesis 1:1) and the Fall (Genesis 3:6), etc. Do you accept these as historical facts? If not, how do you discern between facts and myth?

That is why the atheist science is dangerous. If we didn't have the Bible (fortunately, we do), we would have no choice but to accept the theories of evolution, abiogenesis and quantum cosmology as adequate explanations that will be eventually supplemented by more data. The observations would lead us to them. Only by accepting the Bible can we distinguish between data that are compatible with the existence of Jesus Christ and those that are here only to test and distract us.

Your heart is still in the right place but how long? When will the seduction of useless Deism become too strong and the road to atheism is then paved with good intentions.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Dear Friend,

You are trying to eat the cake and preserve it, and the way to do that is not to use testimonials from a person whose ideas about quantum mechanics failed. Mr. Einstein never accepted quantum entanglement, which, however, the atheists have been able to observe. Why then, would his overall interpretation of QM be the correct one unless it is the only interpretation that supports your preconceptions.
Please note that although I mention names, it is to cite references, not to use them as testimonials.

Your idea of probability being applied to an ensemble of particles does not save your position, it makes it worse. Then we would have to apply stochastics and unpredictability to assemblies of particles.

I am one. So are you.

In the same manner as all modern cosmology contradicts True Christianity™, so does QM. If we start to doubt God's Word in the case of a solid Firmament (Genesis 1:6), why would Jesus be any more real. Obviously, that is what the secularists are trying to make us think, isn't it?

Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

IMHO, quantum entanglement has also been interpreted incorrectly. I'll need more time to show why. Regardless of whether or not some of Einstein's ideas about QM have been disputed, the fact remains that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has also been disputed and that many people today adhere to a version of the ensemble interpretation which is free of any contradictions.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Consciousness? In the naturalistic world it is a continuum. My dog (who'll never get into Heaven; Revelation 22:15) has a theory of mind as he knows very well when I am not watching and he can steal some treats. The chimp baby knows when her mother has died and grieves and can die of a broken heart. In the atheist world it is not a supernatural thing to be explained but just relatively advanced data processing.

It is true that manyanimals possess a simple consciousness, but there are higher levelsof consciousness possessed only by humans, such as cosmicconsciousness which includes an awareness of life and order of theuniverse and an ability to use this cosmic consciousness to grasp andarticulate in various languages knowledge and deeper truths about theuniverse. I doubt that a dog or an elephant would be able to develop or even to understand Minkowski geometry, de rham cohomology, the general theory of relativity or the mechanism behind superconductivity.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

IMHO, you are incorrect in assuming that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the correct one. As prof. Einstein has stated, the correct interpretation of QM is the ensemble interpretation. It is true though that the ensemble interpretation of QM does involve probability theory, but it is probability theory applied to an ensemble of particles, not a single particle as prof. Einstein has pointed out. The ensemble interpretation does not rule out that quantum theory is an incomplete theory which involves there being a hidden layer of reality which blocks our knowledge of what will occur at the quantum level, but this hidden layer of reality will become known as the standard model is updated, revised and expanded to a supersymmetric grand unified membrane theory. The standard model is incomplete and in any case does not contradict any teaching of Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Catholicism. I don't see how it would contradict Baptist Christianity or Protestantism either. At least if you interpret it correctly.

Dear Friend,

You are trying to eat the cake and preserve it, and the way to do that is not to use testimonials from a person whose ideas about quantum mechanics failed. Mr. Einstein never accepted quantum entanglement, which, however, the atheists have been able to observe. Why then, would his overall interpretation of QM be the correct one unless it is the only interpretation that supports your preconceptions.

In a nutshell, experimentalists John Clauser, Alain Aspect, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat and colleagues have performed the Bell proposal for a test of Einstein's hidden variable theories. All results so far support quantum mechanics. It seems that when two particles undergo entanglement, whatever happens to one of the particles can instantly affect the other, even if the particles are separated!

Please note that although I mention names, it is to cite references, not to use them as testimonials.

Your idea of probability being applied to an ensemble of particles does not save your position, it makes it worse. Then we would have to apply stochastics and unpredictability to assemblies of particles.

I am one. So are you.

In the same manner as all modern cosmology contradicts True Christianity™, so does QM. If we start to doubt God's Word in the case of a solid Firmament (Genesis 1:6), why would Jesus be any more real. Obviously, that is what the secularists are trying to make us think, isn't it?

Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Again, based on the atheist world view this nothingness can produce a logical universe with natural laws and that we actually live in it.

Without God, I don't see the mechanism for going from nothingness and a world without logic to the vast world of knowledge and technological advances that we have now?

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

If you accept that as a fact, you must dismiss a lot of God's omnipotence. Either He becomes a trickster who is happy to let things pass as they are OR you make us incapable of striving for the good. In this world of fuzzy logic we can at best have good intentions but with the potential of disastrous results.

No. I'll tell you why. The question of the omnipotence of God hinges on what you mean by omnipotence. IMHO, it really does not mean omnipotence in the usual sense. Omnipotence means you have the power to do anything. But clearly God does not have omnipotence in that sense. God cannot do certain things such as creating the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. This holds without any reference to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which is itself subject to serious question and untenable for a variety of reasons.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

I can see the problem now. You do not rely on Jesus and the Bible but you wish to augment it with data derived from methodological naturalism.

This is a problem as Jesus is 100% the Truth™!

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Quantum mechanics including its refinements either by the string theory (hypothetical) or by the standard model is all about probability functions. It is not about Truth™ or untruth but about stochastic fluctuations. Within this atheist universe is embedded the principle of uncertainty; it's very structure is such that the occurrences at the quantum level are by definition impossible to predict. In addition, a particle can be positioned in two places simultaneously and there is no way to predict future events reliably, only by probabilities.

If you accept that as a fact, you must dismiss a lot of God's omnipotence. Either He becomes a trickster who is happy to let things pass as they are OR you make us incapable of striving for the good. In this world of fuzzy logic we can at best have good intentions but with the potential of disastrous results.

I am afraid that you are on the verge of entering the naturalistic delusion.

Isaiah 66:4
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

A stochastic God is, once again, at best a Deistic being and thus unnecessary. A God capable of predicting quantum events is so complex that the secularists will have good reasons to demand us for some definitions and justification, which leads to ignosticism (not a-, which is just intellectual laziness), when they will really have a good motivation to say that the discussion of a God becomes meaningless unless we give them testable material.

Is the Standard Model in opposition to the Bible? Yes, definitely, it is. We can say that the cosmology of the Bible is outdated but if we say so and it is, why would the Resurrection, the supernatural answers to prayers etc. not be explained by random firing of our neurons producing false emotions and images? It would then be a very good question, and it is our duty that it will not be asked!

It is time we (and you!) returned to the Bible and the Pure Word of God and defended it.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

IMHO, you are incorrect in assuming that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the correct one. As prof. Einstein has stated, the correct interpretation of QM is the ensemble interpretation. It is true though that the ensemble interpretation of QM does involve probability theory, but it is probability theory applied to an ensemble of particles, not a single particle as prof. Einstein has pointed out. The ensemble interpretation does not rule out that quantum theory is an incomplete theory which involves there being a hidden layer of reality which blocks our knowledge of what will occur at the quantum level, but this hidden layer of reality will become known as the standard model is updated, revised and expanded to a supersymmetric grand unified membrane theory. The standard model is incomplete and in any case does not contradict any teaching of Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Catholicism. I don't see how it would contradict Baptist Christianity or Protestantism either. At least if you interpret it correctly.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Perhaps some or even all aspects of brane cosmology or supersymmetric string theory will be shown to be true and correct even though as of yet scientists have not found supersymmetric particles. I don't see how evolution or brane cosmology would have any bearing on the truth of Christianity.

I can see the problem now. You do not rely on Jesus and the Bible but you wish to augment it with data derived from methodological naturalism.

This is a problem as Jesus is 100% the Truth™!

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Quantum mechanics including its refinements either by the string theory (hypothetical) or by the standard model is all about probability functions. It is not about Truth™ or untruth but about stochastic fluctuations. Within this atheist universe is embedded the principle of uncertainty; it's very structure is such that the occurrences at the quantum level are by definition impossible to predict. In addition, a particle can be positioned in two places simultaneously and there is no way to predict future events reliably, only by probabilities.

If you accept that as a fact, you must dismiss a lot of God's omnipotence. Either He becomes a trickster who is happy to let things pass as they are OR you make us incapable of striving for the good. In this world of fuzzy logic we can at best have good intentions but with the potential of disastrous results.

I am afraid that you are on the verge of entering the naturalistic delusion.

Isaiah 66:4
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

A stochastic God is, once again, at best a Deistic being and thus unnecessary. A God capable of predicting quantum events is so complex that the secularists will have good reasons to demand us for some definitions and justification, which leads to ignosticism (not a-, which is just intellectual laziness), when they will really have a good motivation to say that the discussion of a God becomes meaningless unless we give them testable material.

Is the Standard Model in opposition to the Bible? Yes, definitely, it is. We can say that the cosmology of the Bible is outdated but if we say so and it is, why would the Resurrection, the supernatural answers to prayers etc. not be explained by random firing of our neurons producing false emotions and images? It would then be a very good question, and it is our duty that it will not be asked!

It is time we (and you!) returned to the Bible and the Pure Word of God and defended it.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

The problem with Jocaxian nothingness is that the Jocaxian nothingness theory, the theory about the Jocaxian nothingness-object, uses logical rules to help us understand the Jocaxian nothingness-object. But the Jocaxian nothingness object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. A theory describing the Jocaxian nothingness should not use logic or rules since the Jocaxian nothingness object does not involve them.

Again, based on the atheist world view this nothingness can produce a logical universe with natural laws and that we actually live in it. The traces of its emergence are the things that the secularists examine and these traces can - according to methodological naturalism - be investigated with logical and rational tools. They do not rely on the most useful form of evidence, eyewitness testimony, unlike us (Genesis 1:1 is the most powerful one). As an asserted state that has no rules there would also be no place for a rule "thou shalt not use logic". Your post is a non sequitur.

Only Jesus is beyond logic!

Exodus 3:14
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

It's the same with string theory. Brane cosmology is so-o-o attractive and may eventually be proven from the atheist viewpoint making our Jesus even more unnecessary than what the Pope does to Him.

Perhaps some or even all aspects of brane cosmology or supersymmetric string theory will be shown to be true and correct even though as of yet scientists have not found supersymmetric particles. I don't see how evolution or brane cosmology would have any bearing on the truth of Christianity.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

The Jocaxian nothingness is the universe in its minimal state and as such the atheist has only kicked the can down the road because he has no answer as to how this universe in its minimal state came to exist.

Oh, they have the answer ready. If we say that God has always existed (and He has), they can as easily say that the Jocaxian void was there always, and based on their Occam's razor it requires less complexity, as our God is has to be more complex and detailed than the things He Created.

I've tried all this, I assure you, and while it works well with the atheist uneducated zealot, their chief strategists are much more intimidating. But they can never defeat pure Faith™ and its Revelation in the Bible!

Matthew 21:42
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

The Jocaxian nothingness. This is a nothingness that not only does not have physical elements but also 2. lacks logical rules.

The problem with Jocaxian nothingness is that the Jocaxian nothingness theory, the theory about the Jocaxian nothingness-object, uses logical rules to help us understand the Jocaxian nothingness-object. But the Jocaxian nothingness object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. A theory describing the Jocaxian nothingness should not use logic or rules since the Jocaxian nothingness object does not involve them.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

There are various interpretations of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, with the standard interpretation being the Copenhagen interpretation. With reference to this interpretation Richard Feynman has said: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." IMHO, the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics is not the Copenhagen interpretation, but it is the statistical or ensemble interpretation according to which the wave function is an abstract statistical quantity that only applies to an ensemble. As professor Albert Einstein has written: "The attempt to conceive the quantum-theoretical description as the complete description of the individual systems leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which become immediately unnecessary if one accepts the interpretation that the description refers to ensembles of systems and not to individual systems." In any case many scientists adhere to the participatory anthropic principle which says that consciousness plays some role in bringing the material universe into existence. In the near future, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory will be seen to be a small part of a much larger theory, string theory, which does not have the interpretative difficulties of quantum theory.

Dear Friend,

Again, it is dangerous to play the game of the atheists on their own field. Your post above consists of testimonials, which is a valid way to prove the existence of Jesus (and all that we have in the form of the Gospels) but in the field of secular science it is pitifully inadequate. A quotation of a professor is simply an appeal to authority, again a valid argument when we refer to the Bible but an inappropriate fallacy as a naturalistic conclusion. It's the data that matter, not someone's opinion on it! Please, refrain from quoting Einstein with quantum mechanics, as he really did his work long before particle physics shed any light on it. Any secular physicist will tell you this, and I'm only trying to protect you! Whatever a person says about the incomprehensibility of quantum physics is just an assertion and the point is to discuss what the actual data say.

It is even more dangerous to use unknown authorities (again, within secular logic it is a fallacy) with the "many scientists". We of all people should know that the majority is not necessarily correct, as only a very small portion of the World's population believe in Jesus in the correct manner, and He knew it would be like this!

Luke 18:8
I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

The game you're playing is unfortunately one of diminishing returns, and the Catholic Church is unfortunately the one that is succumbing to the naturalistic fallacy the most.

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.

If you start to yield with this point of the Bible, the best you can ultimately achieve is a vague Deist Deity that is principally equivalent to no Deity at all.

It's the same with string theory. Brane cosmology is so-o-o attractive and may eventually be proven from the atheist viewpoint making our Jesus even more unnecessary than what the Pope does to Him.

Our weapon is the Bible. Within that frame testimonials and its authority are still valid. The same paradigm won't work if you fight the naturalists with the weapons they've designed. Please, trust Jesus and His Word and you won't need the ballast of branes of the Big Bang!


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

There are two atheist answers. 1. The Jocaxian nothingness.

The Jocaxian nothingness is the universe in its minimal state and as such the atheist has only kicked the can down the road because he has no answer as to how this universe in its minimal state came to exist.